20th Century RL

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

Falsification is be understood as the refutation of statements, whilst verification refers to statements that are shown to be true. Both are problematic because they rest on shifting understandings of these concepts and their operationalization.

Question 2

Logical positivism

Answer 2

a philosophical movement aimed at rejecting non-empirical language as meaningless.

VP: Ayer: ‘something cannot be held to be true unless it has been scientifically or empirically verified’ Every statement must either be tautology (analytic) or empirical (synthetic). If it is neither it is metaphysical and is rendered senseless thus statements such as ‘God is love’ are not verifiable and hence meaningless

Question 3

Supports of VP

Answer 3

Supporters: Locke and Schlik argued that truth and knowledge can only be found through what we can see and experience using our senses.

Question 4

Disadvantages of VP

Answer 4

Circular argument as verification principle cannot even verify itself as there is no observations, we can empirically see y its own rules it is meaningless

Karl Popper simply argues that we cannot scientifically verify everything

Question 5

counter to disadvantages of VP

Answer 5

Some log pos tried to argue VP is a protocol statement - a statement that describes immediate experience or perception

Question 6

Why the counter to VP is flawed

Answer 6

but this undermines the idea of only two true types of sentences and already the theory of LP begins to contradict itself

underlying assumptions, such as that scientists alone can give information on the world. we gain insights from art and poetry, but they are not verifiable. log pos’ idea of only two language categories rules out valuable contributions to human knowledge.

Question 7

Strong and weak verification - point one and then what it is

Answer 7

All of history would be rendered meaningless as we have no way of conclusively verifying historical sources

Ayer makes distinction between weak/strong verification.
Strong V: When there is no doubt that the statement is true.
Weak V: There is some observation relevant to proving assertion is true/false and thus if verifiable in principle this is sufficient evidence to verify it

Anne Boleyn being beheaded due to the sources is verifiable in principle and hence meaningful whereas statements such as ‘God is creator’ we have no evidence to verify as true/false and thus meaningless

Question 8

Disadvantages to Strong/weak

Answer 8

RE – St Theresa of Avilla / Saint Catherine are evidence
Hick’s eschatological verification in the parable of the ‘Celestial city’ after death we will be able to verify God’s existence
-In principle you could verify religion as if in the future the statement could be verified and meaningful then it should not be treated as meaningless in the present

Question 9

Why is Hick’s argument flawed

Answer 9

Misses Ayer’s point: Different levels of verification: Analytic, science, history, emotion, religion truths
-Emotion and religious truths are subjective which makes them less reliable and less meaningful
Hick’s eschatological verification could prove anything i.e., a monster eating our souls after death

Question 10

Falsification

Answer 10

Developed to capture empiricism better than verification. Verification fails as it over generalises and statements such as ‘all swans are white’ assumes that black swans can never exist. Instead with falsification is to make a hypothesis and then prove it wrong, which means that we can falsify ‘all swans are white’ by seeing non white swan.
However religious believers are allowing their definition of God to ‘die death of a thousand qualifications’ as they can’t obtain God’s nature when the problem of evil exists. They can’t accept that God might not be benevolent and therefore the assertion ‘God is loving’ is meaningless as it cannot be falsified.

Question 11

Mitchell counter to falsification

Answer 11

Mitchell - religious believers do change their theory about the world in the face of new evidence. For example, when the Big Bang was discovered, it appeared to disprove the statement ‘God is creator’.

Question 12

Disadvantages if Mitchell

Answer 12

However, some religious believers have altered their belief to say that God is still creator because he started the universe through the Big Bang.

Question 13

Further disadvantages of Mitchell

Answer 13

Richard Dawkins pointed out that the world would be the same if there was no god, so you can see how this lines up.

John Wisdom Parable
Two explorers discover land that resembles garden and disagree on existence of gardener
No other evidence qualifies claim ‘only comes out at night, invisible, undetectable’
How does this differ from non-existent gardener?

Question 14

Mitchell’s critique of falsification

Answer 14

Parable of the Partisan: Stranger meets Partisan, and Partisan says on stranger’s side. However sceptical as Partisan fights for other side. Must have faith and trust Partisan.
Analogous to God as religious believers do count problem of evil against God but choose to retain faith. Belief still connected by an empirical reality hence meaningful.

Question 15

Disadvantages of Mitchells parable

Answer 15

Circular saying that power on faith based on evidence is stronger than any counter evidence

Question 16

Advantages of parable

Answer 16

while the direct nature of God cannot be falsified the nature of religion can be e.g. ‘Religion creates a community’ is an assertion that can be falsified and therefore an aspect of religious language has meaning
God is greater than science therefore can not be confined to scientific falsification.

Swinburne - uses example of Toys in cupboard coming alive to argue we don’t know enough about God’s nature to falsify it

Question 17

Counter to advantages of parable

Answer 17

Weak Verification: There is some observation relevant to proving assertion is true/false and thus if verifiable in principle this is sufficient evidence to verify it
Emotion and religious truths are subjective which makes them less reliable and less meaningful