33:I[196793,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"Gingerbread"] 35:I[647935,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"RecordResourceResume"] 36:I[830476,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"FlashcardAccessBranch"] 37:I[315438,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"TopicFlashcardRunner"] 24:[["$","$L33",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L34",["$","$L35",null,{"href":"/as-level/religious-studies/ocr/as-religious-language-twentieth-century-perspectives/flashcards","label":"Religious Language: Twentieth Century Perspectives","subjectCode":"as_level_religious_studies__ocr","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L36",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L37",null,{"decks":[{"id":"0f13ffa0-1ecf-478f-b7c8-af6e8a23c31f","title":"Religious Language: Twentieth Century Perspectives Flashcards","topicId":"911c035f-ee79-5153-9afd-f79684547852","topicSlug":"as-religious-language-twentieth-century-perspectives","cards":[{"id":"513bc7b6-d0cf-433c-970f-2cc3c80225ab","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If a believer treats "God created the world" as cognitive, what status does the claim have?","back":"A factual claim that can be true or false.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A factual claim that can be true or false.","correct":true,"explanation":"Treating the statement cognitively means taking it as describing reality. It therefore functions as a factual claim, which can in principle be assessed as true or false."},{"text":"A non-cognitive expression of religious emotion.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses cognitive language with non-cognitive language, which expresses attitudes rather than facts. A cognitive reading treats the claim as factual and therefore capable of being true or false."},{"text":"A symbolic statement that cannot be assessed as true or false.","correct":false,"explanation":"A symbolic interpretation may avoid factual truth, but that is not the cognitive position. Cognitive believers treat the statement as a factual claim that can be true or false."},{"text":"A moral command directing believers how to behave.","correct":false,"explanation":"The statement is not primarily an instruction or moral command under a cognitive interpretation. It is understood as a factual claim about what happened, capable of being true or false."}]},{"id":"bee70c7f-1d3f-4569-9df1-535d410a7042","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If "God forgives me" is read non-cognitively, what is it doing rather than reporting a fact?","back":"Expressing attitude, commitment or a way of seeing life.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Expressing attitude, commitment or a way of seeing life.","correct":true,"explanation":"A non-cognitive reading does not treat the statement as reporting an objectively verifiable fact. Instead, it expresses the believer’s attitude, commitment or perspective on life."},{"text":"Reporting a historical event that can be independently tested.","correct":false,"explanation":"This treats the statement cognitively, as an externally testable report. Non-cognitive religious language instead expresses attitude, commitment or a way of seeing life rather than reporting a fact."},{"text":"Defining a logically necessary truth about forgiveness.","correct":false,"explanation":"The statement is not an analytic definition whose truth follows from the meanings of its words. On a non-cognitive reading, it expresses personal commitment or a perspective."},{"text":"Describing a measurable emotional response in the speaker.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although emotion may be involved, non-cognitive religious language is broader than a measurable psychological report. It expresses attitude, commitment or a way of seeing life."}]},{"id":"e1c23eef-700d-4b36-aad1-da1759e8b50a","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"For Aquinas, how can "God is good" be meaningful without using "good" univocally?","back":"

It is said analogically, not identically.
There is a real relation to human goodness.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

It is said analogically, not identically.
There is a real relation to human goodness.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Aquinas avoids both univocal and meaningless equivocal language by saying that goodness applies analogically. Creatures genuinely reflect divine goodness, creating a real relation without making the meanings identical."},{"text":"

It is said univocally, with exactly the same meaning.
There is a real relation to human goodness.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Aquinas rejects univocal language because God’s goodness is not identical in meaning to human goodness. He instead uses analogy, while retaining a real relation between them."},{"text":"

It is said equivocally, with unrelated meanings.
There is no relation to human goodness.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This mistakes Aquinas’s position for pure equivocation. If the meanings were entirely unrelated, statements about God would be unintelligible; analogy preserves a real relation to human goodness."},{"text":"

It is said metaphorically, without literal meaning.
There is a similar appearance to human goodness.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Aquinas’s analogy is more than a decorative metaphor or superficial resemblance. It claims a genuine relation between divine and human goodness, while denying that the term has exactly the same meaning."}]},{"id":"79c8dd5d-5166-434b-a10e-0668762e9bc8","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The verification principle says a statement is meaningful only if it is [ ] or [ ].","back":"The verification principle says a statement is meaningful only if it is analytic or empirically verifiable.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The verification principle says a statement is meaningful only if it is analytic or empirically verifiable.","correct":true,"explanation":"The verification principle admits statements whose truth follows from definitions or logic, and statements that experience could confirm. These are analytic and empirically verifiable claims."},{"text":"The verification principle says a statement is meaningful only if it is synthetic or logically falsifiable.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the usual formulation and substitutes falsification for verification. The principle requires a statement to be analytic or empirically verifiable to count as meaningful."},{"text":"The verification principle says a statement is meaningful only if it is moral or emotionally persuasive.","correct":false,"explanation":"Moral force and emotional appeal do not satisfy the logical positivists’ test for cognitive meaning. The required categories are analytic statements and empirically verifiable statements."},{"text":"The verification principle says a statement is meaningful only if it is metaphorical or religiously accepted.","correct":false,"explanation":"Personal or religious acceptance cannot establish meaningfulness under the verification principle. It asks whether a statement is analytic or open to empirical verification."}]},{"id":"412b9d97-6784-4235-a3d4-e2d5a5b2523e","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why does Ayer reject "God exists" as a genuine factual proposition?","back":"

It is not analytic.
It is not empirically verifiable.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

It is not analytic.
It is not empirically verifiable.

","correct":true,"explanation":"“God exists” is not true by definition, so it is not analytic, and Ayer argues that no possible observation could verify it. It therefore fails both parts of the principle."},{"text":"

It is not synthetic.
It is not logically necessary.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Ayer’s objection is not that the claim fails to be synthetic or logically necessary. His verification principle asks whether it is analytic or empirically verifiable, and it is neither."},{"text":"

It is too emotional.
It is not morally useful.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Ayer does not reject the claim because it is emotional or morally unhelpful. He rejects it as a factual proposition because it is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable."},{"text":"

It is not universally believed.
It is not supported by religious tradition.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Universal belief and religious tradition are not Ayer’s tests for factual meaning. His criticism is that the statement is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable."}]},{"id":"6c1c8649-bc00-48a6-9f30-03c072be8282","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What is Ayer not trying to prove when he criticises God-talk?","back":"He challenges meaning, not God’s existence directly.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"He challenges meaning, not God’s existence directly.","correct":true,"explanation":"Ayer’s verification principle asks whether religious claims have cognitive meaning. His conclusion concerns their status as meaningful propositions, not a direct proof that God does not exist."},{"text":"He proves God’s non-existence, rather than criticising religious language.","correct":false,"explanation":"Ayer does not claim to have demonstrated that God does not exist. He argues that “God exists” lacks factual meaning because it is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable."},{"text":"He challenges religious morality, not the meaning of theological claims.","correct":false,"explanation":"Ayer’s target is the meaningfulness of theological assertions, not primarily the moral teachings of religion. He distinguishes this semantic criticism from a direct argument about God’s existence."},{"text":"He accepts God’s existence, while rejecting all forms of religious practice.","correct":false,"explanation":"Ayer neither establishes God’s existence nor makes religious practice the central issue. His criticism concerns whether God-talk expresses meaningful factual propositions."}]},{"id":"ef6a9c26-eb04-4606-aed6-eeeff552e982","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"[ ] requires conclusive proof through experience; [ ] requires experience to make a claim probable.","back":"Strong verification requires conclusive proof through experience; weak verification requires experience to make a claim probable.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Strong verification requires conclusive proof through experience; weak verification requires experience to make a claim probable.","correct":true,"explanation":"Strong verification demands decisive experiential proof, whereas weak verification only requires that experience make a statement probable. Ayer favoured the weaker standard as more practical."},{"text":"Weak verification requires conclusive proof through experience; strong verification requires experience to make a claim probable.","correct":false,"explanation":"These definitions are reversed. Strong verification demands conclusive experiential proof, while weak verification requires only enough experience to make a claim probable."},{"text":"Strong verification requires logical proof through definitions; weak verification requires personal faith to make a claim probable.","correct":false,"explanation":"Verification in this distinction concerns experience, not definitions or private faith. Strong verification is conclusive experience, while weak verification makes a claim probable through experience."},{"text":"Weak verification requires conclusive proof through experience; strong verification requires repeated testimony to make a claim probable.","correct":false,"explanation":"This option reverses the labels and replaces experience with testimony for the weaker standard. Strong verification is conclusive through experience; weak verification makes a claim probable through experience."}]},{"id":"0017ca20-29e4-4b75-b8ec-0f1d8d857649","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why did Ayer prefer weak verification to strong verification?","back":"It avoids excluding ordinary historical and scientific claims.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It avoids excluding ordinary historical and scientific claims.","correct":true,"explanation":"Strict verification would rule out many accepted claims because past events and scientific laws are rarely conclusively proved by direct experience. Weak verification allows evidence to make them probable."},{"text":"It avoids excluding private mystical and supernatural experiences.","correct":false,"explanation":"Ayer’s preference was aimed at preserving ordinary historical and scientific claims, not granting automatic status to private mystical experiences. Weak verification accommodates probable evidence in public inquiry."},{"text":"It avoids requiring any evidence for religious claims.","correct":false,"explanation":"Weak verification does not remove the need for evidence; it lowers the requirement from conclusive proof to probability based on experience. Its purpose is to preserve ordinary historical and scientific claims."},{"text":"It avoids accepting logical and mathematical propositions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Logical and mathematical propositions are already covered as analytic statements, so weak verification is not needed to protect them. Ayer introduced it to avoid excluding historical and scientific claims."}]},{"id":"3084e4e6-2061-4327-8f0f-73adf811acdd","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Under Ayer, why is "God answers prayer" not factually meaningful?","back":"

We observe only events after prayer.
We do not verify God’s action.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

We observe only events after prayer.
We do not verify God’s action.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Ayer accepts that events following prayer can be observed, but the supposed divine cause cannot be tested. Therefore, the claim cannot be factually verified as a meaningful proposition."},{"text":"

We observe only events before prayer.
We do not verify God’s action.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The relevant observations occur after people pray, not before. Ayer’s objection is that although subsequent events are observable, God’s action as their cause cannot be verified."},{"text":"

We observe only events after prayer.
We directly verify God’s action.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Observing events after prayer does not provide direct access to divine action. Verificationism requires the alleged cause itself to be testable, which Ayer argues it is not."},{"text":"

We observe only prayers before events.
We verify God’s action through worship.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Worship and the sequence of prayer and events do not empirically establish God as the cause. Ayer’s point is that only the later events are observable, not divine action."}]},{"id":"1be01ac1-0072-4b14-8168-850d7968af7b","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is the verification principle accused of being self-defeating?","back":"It is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable itself.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable itself.","correct":true,"explanation":"The verification principle claims that meaningful statements must be analytic or empirically verifiable, yet the principle itself is neither true by definition nor testable through observation."},{"text":"It is both analytic and empirically verifiable itself.","correct":false,"explanation":"Calling the principle both analytic and empirically verifiable removes the self-defeating problem, but that is not the criticism. Its own status cannot satisfy either requirement."},{"text":"It is empirically verifiable but not analytic itself.","correct":false,"explanation":"The principle is not confirmed by a particular observation or experiment. It is a philosophical criterion, so it fails empirical verification rather than meeting it."},{"text":"It is analytic but not empirically verifiable itself.","correct":false,"explanation":"The principle is not true merely because of the meanings of its words, so it is not analytic. Treating it as analytic overlooks the very dilemma that makes it self-defeating."}]},{"id":"8291b5e1-2a98-462d-ad07-c32fda48d284","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Hick’s [ ] says some religious claims may be verifiable [ ].","back":"Hick’s eschatological verification says some religious claims may be verifiable after death.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Hick’s eschatological verification says some religious claims may be verifiable after death.","correct":true,"explanation":"Hick argues that some religious claims could be checked after death, if an individual survives and discovers that the claims were true. This makes them verifiable in principle."},{"text":"Hick’s eschatological falsification says some religious claims may be verifiable after death.","correct":false,"explanation":"Hick’s proposal concerns possible confirmation after death, not falsification. The term is eschatological verification because the relevant test would occur at the end of earthly life."},{"text":"Hick’s eschatological verification says some religious claims may be verifiable before death.","correct":false,"explanation":"Hick was addressing claims that cannot be tested during ordinary earthly experience. His distinctive suggestion is that they may become verifiable after death, not before it."},{"text":"Hick’s empirical verification says some religious claims may be verifiable during prayer.","correct":false,"explanation":"Empirical verification relies on observable evidence in ordinary experience, whereas Hick’s argument appeals to a possible post-mortem discovery. The relevant concept is eschatological verification after death."}]},{"id":"aa61d6b5-f805-4152-b9d2-86798ec929a9","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"For later Wittgenstein, what makes religious words meaningful?","back":"Their use within religious practice.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Their use within religious practice.","correct":true,"explanation":"Later Wittgenstein argues that meaning depends on how words are used within a language game and form of life, rather than on pointing to independently verifiable objects."},{"text":"Their reference to scientifically measurable objects.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reflects a scientific or verificationist account of meaning, not Wittgenstein’s later view. He explains religious meaning through use within religious practices and contexts."},{"text":"Their translation into logical propositions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reducing religious language to formal logic would impose a different standard of meaning. Later Wittgenstein stresses the practical role words play within particular forms of life."},{"text":"Their ability to predict future events.","correct":false,"explanation":"Predictive success is important for some scientific statements, but it is not the general basis of religious meaning for later Wittgenstein. Meaning arises from situated use."}]},{"id":"9d6a16fc-ca3d-4dc5-87b2-fe47aaba969b","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"A [ ] is a rule-governed context; a [ ] is the wider pattern of practices and values.","back":"A language game is a rule-governed context; a form of life is the wider pattern of practices and values.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A language game is a rule-governed context; a form of life is the wider pattern of practices and values.","correct":true,"explanation":"A language game describes the rules and activities governing particular uses of language, while a form of life is the broader social and cultural setting that gives those activities significance."},{"text":"A form of life is a rule-governed context; a language game is the wider pattern of practices and values.","correct":false,"explanation":"The two concepts have been reversed. A language game is the specific rule-governed activity, whereas a form of life is the wider pattern of practices and values."},{"text":"A language game is a private belief; a form of life is a scientific theory.","correct":false,"explanation":"Neither concept refers to those things. Wittgenstein uses language game for a socially governed linguistic activity and form of life for its broader cultural context."},{"text":"A form of life is a logical argument; a language game is a religious doctrine.","correct":false,"explanation":"These definitions confuse Wittgenstein’s terms with types of proposition or belief. Both concepts concern how language functions in activities, with form of life being the broader context."}]},{"id":"86f639cd-eef4-49df-8007-c5a1673584c5","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"In Wittgensteinian terms, what gives "God is my shepherd" meaning?","back":"Its use in biblical and worshipping life.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Its use in biblical and worshipping life.","correct":true,"explanation":"The phrase gains meaning from how believers use it in scripture, worship, prayer and religious practice. Its meaning is practical and contextual rather than dependent on scientific verification."},{"text":"Its definition in a scientific dictionary.","correct":false,"explanation":"A scientific dictionary cannot capture the phrase’s role within worship and biblical practice. Wittgenstein’s later account locates meaning in use, not in an isolated technical definition."},{"text":"Its proof through observable shepherding events.","correct":false,"explanation":"The phrase is not normally a claim that can be tested by observing literal shepherding events. Its religious meaning comes from its use within biblical and worshipping life."},{"text":"Its translation into a mathematical equation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Mathematical translation is not what makes this religious metaphor meaningful. Its significance is established by the practices, associations and forms of life in which believers use it."}]},{"id":"9d6fefe9-c103-4c5a-a2fd-775863c7b17b","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How does Wittgenstein defend religious language from Ayer’s verificationist test?","back":"It has meaning within religious practice, not scientific verification.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It has meaning within religious practice, not scientific verification.","correct":true,"explanation":"Wittgenstein rejects the assumption that all meaningful language must meet a scientific test. Religious language can be meaningful through its role in religious practices and activities."},{"text":"It has meaning only through scientific verification, not religious practice.","correct":false,"explanation":"This repeats Ayer’s kind of standard rather than Wittgenstein’s response. Later Wittgenstein argues that religious language has meaning through its use within religious practice."},{"text":"It has meaning through private emotions, not public practice.","correct":false,"explanation":"Wittgenstein does not make private feeling the sole basis of meaning. Language is understood through shared activities, rules and forms of life, including religious practice."},{"text":"It has meaning through logical form, not contextual use.","correct":false,"explanation":"Logical form is associated more closely with earlier philosophical approaches. Later Wittgenstein explains meaning through contextual use, including the practices surrounding religious language."}]},{"id":"7cf69390-eea7-47da-aaad-2767733b36f9","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What is the cost of treating religious language non-cognitively?","back":"It may not secure objective truth claims about God.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It may not secure objective truth claims about God.","correct":true,"explanation":"If religious language is meaningful because of its role within a form of life rather than because it describes independently verifiable facts, its status as objectively true becomes less secure."},{"text":"It may not secure subjective truth claims about God.","correct":false,"explanation":"A non-cognitive approach usually preserves the personal or community significance of religious language, so subjective commitment is not the main difficulty. The concern is objective truth."},{"text":"It may not secure moral truth claims about God.","correct":false,"explanation":"The criticism is broader than morality. Treating religious language non-cognitively threatens claims that God exists or acts objectively, including but not limited to moral claims."},{"text":"It may not secure scientific truth claims about God.","correct":false,"explanation":"Scientific truth is already not the usual aim of non-cognitive religious language. The deeper cost is that such language may fail to make objective claims about God at all."}]},{"id":"3a4b1d34-7933-478b-a730-57eac8961ccb","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Language games explain [ ], not [ ].","back":"Language games explain meaning, not automatic truth.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Language games explain meaning, not automatic truth.","correct":true,"explanation":"Language games clarify how words function within particular forms of life, giving them meaning and rules for use. They do not by themselves guarantee that the claims are automatically true."},{"text":"Language games explain automatic truth, not meaning.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses Wittgenstein’s point: language games establish how expressions are meaningful within a practice, but they cannot make every claim automatically true. Meaning comes before any question of truth."},{"text":"Language games explain grammar, not automatic truth.","correct":false,"explanation":"Grammar describes rules of expression, but the relevant claim is broader: language games explain meaning within a form of life. They still do not make religious statements automatically true."},{"text":"Language games explain objective truth, not personal belief.","correct":false,"explanation":"Language games do not establish objective truth or reduce religious language to private belief. Their role is to show how religious expressions gain meaning within religious practices."}]},{"id":"cfccb216-4306-4ef8-97c0-2c0e5d47237d","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"In falsification, a statement is factually significant if some possible situation would show it to be [ ].","back":"In falsification, a statement is factually significant if some possible situation would show it to be false.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"false","correct":true,"explanation":"A statement is factually significant only if there is some conceivable situation that could demonstrate its falsity. This makes falsifiability the test for whether it genuinely says something about reality."},{"text":"true","correct":false,"explanation":"Falsification is concerned with whether a claim could be shown false, not merely with identifying circumstances that support it. The required term is false because testability depends on possible refutation."},{"text":"meaningful","correct":false,"explanation":"Meaningfulness concerns whether an expression has significance within language, whereas falsification tests factual significance. A possible situation must be able to show the statement false."},{"text":"unverifiable","correct":false,"explanation":"A claim that cannot be tested or challenged is unfalsifiable, which is precisely the problem falsification identifies. The relevant condition is that some possible situation could show it false."}]},{"id":"441812fc-d590-4fb5-ace1-cc6bc2972a80","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What problem does Flew’s gardener parable expose in religious language?","back":"An unfalsifiable gardener becomes indistinguishable from no gardener.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"An unfalsifiable gardener becomes indistinguishable from no gardener.","correct":true,"explanation":"Flew argues that continual qualifications can remove every possible test for the gardener’s existence. Once no observation could count against the claim, it has no practical difference from there being no gardener."},{"text":"An unfalsifiable gardener becomes indistinguishable from an invisible gardener.","correct":false,"explanation":"Invisibility alone does not capture Flew’s criticism, because an invisible gardener might still produce observable effects. The problem is that an unfalsifiable gardener cannot be distinguished from no gardener at all."},{"text":"An unfalsifiable gardener becomes indistinguishable from a secret gardener.","correct":false,"explanation":"Secrecy could explain why the gardener is not observed, but it does not make the claim meaningless. Flew’s point is that endless qualifications remove every possible evidence against the gardener."},{"text":"An unfalsifiable gardener becomes indistinguishable from a symbolic gardener.","correct":false,"explanation":"Calling the gardener symbolic changes the type of claim rather than exposing Flew’s specific problem. His criticism concerns a supposedly factual gardener that has been protected from every possible falsification."}]},{"id":"2f9a6ca2-fcfe-4f8c-8083-5833274e15af","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What does Flew mean by religious claims dying "the death of a thousand qualifications"?","back":"Believers keep adjusting claims so nothing counts against them.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Believers keep adjusting claims so nothing counts against them.","correct":true,"explanation":"Flew’s phrase describes repeated qualifications added whenever evidence creates difficulty. The claim is continually altered or protected until no possible observation can count against it."},{"text":"Believers keep collecting evidence so nothing counts against them.","correct":false,"explanation":"Collecting evidence is not what Flew means by the phrase. The criticism concerns changing or qualifying a claim whenever it is challenged, so that it becomes unfalsifiable."},{"text":"Believers keep abandoning claims so nothing counts against them.","correct":false,"explanation":"Abandoning a claim would accept that evidence has defeated it, which is the opposite of Flew’s criticism. He argues that believers preserve claims by repeatedly modifying their meaning."},{"text":"Believers keep simplifying claims so nothing counts against them.","correct":false,"explanation":"Simplifying a claim does not necessarily protect it from criticism. Flew’s point is that believers add qualifications or adjustments after each challenge, preventing any evidence from counting against the claim."}]},{"id":"62a7540c-76c6-4cba-aaf9-cf1eb682cfd3","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"For Hare, what does a religious blik do?","back":"It shapes interpretation of the world.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It shapes interpretation of the world.","correct":true,"explanation":"For Hare, a blik is a basic, non-rational outlook through which a person interprets experience. It influences how the world is understood rather than functioning as an ordinary factual hypothesis."},{"text":"It proves existence of God.","correct":false,"explanation":"Hare does not regard a blik as a proof of God’s existence. A blik shapes the believer’s interpretation of experience, but it is not established through evidence as a demonstrative argument."},{"text":"It describes observable facts of the world.","correct":false,"explanation":"A blik is not simply a report of observable facts. It is the underlying outlook that determines how facts and experiences are interpreted, so it operates more fundamentally than factual description."},{"text":"It removes ambiguity from the world.","correct":false,"explanation":"Hare’s concept does not guarantee an unambiguous account of reality. A blik provides an interpretive framework, but different people may adopt different bliks and understand the same experiences differently."}]},{"id":"2a5d4905-b34f-43ff-a506-c06d57e79477","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How is Mitchell’s position a middle way in the falsification debate?","back":"Faith makes factual claims while recognising mixed evidence.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Faith makes factual claims while recognising mixed evidence.","correct":true,"explanation":"Mitchell avoids both extremes by treating religious faith as making genuine claims about reality while admitting that evidence is mixed and does not provide conclusive proof or disproof."},{"text":"Faith makes non-factual claims while recognising mixed evidence.","correct":false,"explanation":"This is closer to Hare’s non-cognitive approach than Mitchell’s position. Mitchell argues that religious faith makes factual claims, even though the supporting evidence is mixed rather than decisive."},{"text":"Faith makes factual claims while requiring conclusive evidence.","correct":false,"explanation":"Requiring conclusive evidence would move Mitchell towards a strict evidentialist position. His middle way accepts factual religious claims while acknowledging that the evidence remains mixed and incomplete."},{"text":"Faith makes symbolic claims while ignoring mixed evidence.","correct":false,"explanation":"This combines a non-factual view with rejection of evidence, neither of which represents Mitchell’s middle position. He treats faith as factual and takes the mixed evidence seriously."}]},{"id":"d3e536bb-5a1e-406b-b1b9-9112f480ddca","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Aquinas helps explain religious language as [ ]; Wittgenstein helps explain it as [ ].","back":"Aquinas helps explain religious language as true about God; Wittgenstein helps explain it as meaningful within religious life.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Aquinas helps explain religious language as true about God; Wittgenstein helps explain it as meaningful within religious life.","correct":true,"explanation":"Aquinas treats religious language as genuinely referring to God, though imperfectly and analogically. Wittgenstein emphasises how religious language gains meaning through its use within a religious form of life."},{"text":"Aquinas helps explain religious language as meaningful within religious life; Wittgenstein helps explain it as true about God.","correct":false,"explanation":"This swaps the two thinkers’ emphases. Aquinas defends meaningful truth about God through analogy, while Wittgenstein’s language-game approach focuses on meaning within religious practice rather than objective truth."},{"text":"Aquinas helps explain religious language as symbolic but not factual; Wittgenstein helps explain it as scientifically verifiable.","correct":false,"explanation":"Aquinas does not reduce religious claims to non-factual symbols, and Wittgenstein does not make them scientifically verifiable. Their approaches concern analogy and religious language-games respectively."},{"text":"Aquinas helps explain religious language as literally identical to human language; Wittgenstein helps explain it as automatically true about God.","correct":false,"explanation":"Aquinas argues that language about God is analogical, not literally identical to ordinary human language. Wittgenstein explains meaningful use within religious life, not automatic truth."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-14","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"Religious Language: Twentieth Century Perspectives","title":"Religious Language: Twentieth Century Perspectives Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/as-level/religious-studies/ocr/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L38"}]}],"topicId":"911c035f-ee79-5153-9afd-f79684547852","walled":"$L39"}],"$L3a","$L3b"]