Religious language discusses religious and spiritual concepts. It is cognitive and conveys knowledge of what is really there. Religious language offers a correspondence theory of truth if it is thought of as being able to point to the reality that it is trying to convey. It is the language of worship – it is performative and prescriptive. Some philosophers such as Aquinas believe that it is possible to talk meaningfully, truthfully and factually about God whereas others like Ayer believe this to be impossible.
P3: It is possible to have an experience of God. C: Therefore God must exist. This shows the inductive nature of the argument as well as the synthetic experiences it is based on. As Swinburne's proof of god through religious experience shows, there is a logical thought process that can systematically prove the existence of god if these premises are agreed upon. Some philosophers such as Ayer argue that experience cannot provide a stable base for the indication of reality because it is the interpretation of the experience that we are hearing for the experiencer, therefore we can never have concrete evidence that that is how the experience occurred.
On one hand you have the philosophers who believe you can speak and write about God, because God is reality. On the other hand, are the Logical Positivists who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real. There are a number of philosophers who claimed to have proven conclusively that religious language is meaningful, for example Aquinas’ theory of analogy. An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand and forming relations through attributes or relations that are similar. Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God.
Notable Apologists A. Justin Martyr B. Tertullian C. Origen D. St. Augustine of Hippo E. Martin Luther F. C.S. Lewis III. Conclusion Notable Apologists – The Defenders of Christianity “Apologetics” is an English term derived from the Greek apologia, which means to ‘give an answer.’ As noted in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Biblical Scripture urges us to “make a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you to give an account (logos) for the hope (elpidos) that is in you” (Peter 3:15 NASB). (Hindson and Caner 29). As much of Christianity cannot be proven and may not be accepted on faith alone, one must be brought to understand Christianity.
Analyse the essential ideas in the Ontological Argument The Ontological (meaning ‘concerned with being’) argument is the only a priori argument for the existence of God. This means that it does not rely on the evidence of our senses for its premises or conclusion. It works by logical stages, which is self evidently true or logically necessary. This is one of its major strengths. It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises.
He therefore comes to the conclusion that there must be a first mover that was not put in motion by something else, and states that this unmoved mover is understood to be God. God is therefore purely in an actual state. The second argument is very similar to the first one which is why they are so often grouped together. Aquinas states that nothing causes itself, and that all efficient causes follow an order however this cannot go on to infinity as there would be no first efficient cause. He therefore concludes that a first uncaused cause is necessary and this cause we know as God.
The Ontological Argument The Ontological Argument is an a priori argument, revolving around the existence of God. St Anselm’s Ontological Argument St Anselm, the then Archbishop of Canterbury devised the Ontological Argument in his ‘Proslogion.’ Anselm approached the existence of God with a ‘faith-seeking’ understanding, not motivated to convince or persuade people. Anselm uses the fool of the Psalms to begin the premise of his argument. The ‘fool’ of the Psalms declares that ‘in his heart, there is no God.’ Anselm criticizes the fool by arguing that the fool conceives the concept of God in his mind, but he paradoxically refuses its existence. 1st version of the Ontological Argument 1) God is something ‘than that which nothing greater can be conceived’ (God is the greatest being that we, as humans, can conceive in our minds.)
Chapter Two of Proslogion introduces Anselm’s argument. This particular part of the Ontological Argument focuses on the definition of God. Anselm defines God as ‘something than which nothing greater can be thought.’ Moreover, he claims that everybody, whether they believe in God or not agrees with this definition (even the fool in the Psalms who claims he doesn’t believe in God). As well as this, Anselm agrees to the fact that there is a difference between understand God as a concept and understanding him to exist. To further explain this point, he uses the analogy of a painter.
Faith and reason must be conformed. The philosophy of St. Anselm is so difficult to understand. I think, he was confused because nothing greater can be conceived. He conceived God as infinite, perfect, one, all-knowing. But I asked, how can he conceive God and how can a finite conceive the infinite?
As Becket moves closer to falling into the Tempter's trap, the Tempter tells him that the price of such power is the "[p]retence of priestly power"-he would have to give up his claims as archbishop to spiritual authority. Only in so doing will Becket receive "the power and the glory"- doxological conclusion of the Lord's Prayer: "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. All worldly power is as nothing compared to the power of God, as Becket knows: "[S]hall I, who keep the keys / O f heaven and hell"-a reference to the power of pardon Jesus grants to the Church ".Descend to desire a punier power?". Becket makes clear the distinction between temporal and spiritual power: it can only guarantee order "as the world knows order". Becket's second temptation has a clear analogue in Scripture, when the devil tempts Jesus to rule over all the kingdoms of the earth, in return for worshiping him (Matt.