UNIT 3 - DEVELOPMENTS EDEXCEL A2 Religious Studies

I'm struggling on how to structure religious language personally.

Does anyone have any notes I can use?

Hi is anyone doing religious language and ethical language?
What types of religious language show it to be meaningless...I understand the stuff I don't know how to apply it to the question e.g. I know verification and falsification show it to be meaningless, but what about analogy and language games?
also in ethical language, what are the problems and what are the solutions?

I'm stressing out so much about Ethical Theories, I really hope Deontology is there as a choice!!!

I'm hoping natural moral law is there as a choice!

What are the strengths of RL?????
Got the weaknesses from Hare regarding Bliks and so on...
Struggling with strengths

Problems of RL (Those who would say RL is Meaningless): Verification Principle & Falsification Principle

Strengths of RL: you'd look into Language Games, Symbolism and Myth, Analogy, Hare's notion of Bliks works in defense of RL as it attempts to disprove the Falsification Principle.

We never learnt myth, symbol and analogy!
Can only answer the question of it asks to give view points on why it is meaningless

Tbh you still have time to learn Myth, Symbols and Analogies, or maybe just focus on Analogy or Myth/Symbols?

Analogy is probably the easiest to learn as its already related the the study of Religious Language, Just learn the key points. Good Luck

Analogy
Aquinas argued that religious language is best understood through the use of analogy. He criticised univocal and equivocal language:Univocal - words have one objective meaningEquivocal - words have subjective meaningsInstead, Aquinas argued for two types of analogy:
Analogy of Attribution
The analogy of attribution states that our goodness comes directly from God. This is best highlighted with the analogy of a baker and bread. A load of bread is good because the baker is good; the attributes of the baker caused the attributes of the bread, even though the two don't necessarily share the two attributes. Similarly, God's attributes cause our attributes - our goodness comes from him. We don't know what it means for God to be good, but we know he is good because we see it in ourselves.

Analogy of Proportion
To understand the nature of God, it is best to use the analogy of proportion. This states that there is a proportionate relationship between all things. For example, the following statements are all proportionate to one another:We understand plants as being 'alive' in a sense, but that doesn't compare to how we define ourselves as alive. Similarly, God's life is greater than ours; all things must be understood in proportion to one another.
Ian Ramsey supports Aquinas's idea of using analogies in religious language. Ramsey argues that words like 'kind' and 'caring' cannot be used univocally or equivocally, so we have to qualify the model with words such as 'infinitely' or 'eternally'. By qualifying our terms, we can use analogies to express God.

Criticisms of Analogy

For people doing religious experience ...
If it asks what are the key features of the argument from religious experience...
What are they?
I've got inductive/a posteriori but what else to write 18 marks on?!