Formal arguments Flashcards
What is the formal cognitivist argument for the existence of religious language?
P1: Sentences are meaningful is they are statements.
P2: Expressions or beliefs about the world are true or false.
P3: ‘God Exists’ is the claim that there is a God who exists independently in the world, and reasons can be given to support this claim.
C: Therefore, ‘God exists’ is meaningful
What is a formal non-cognitivists argument concerning religious language?
P1: Expressions are meaningful if they are expression of a mental state. For example, a belief, memory, emotion, or value.
P2: Expressions of these non-cognitive mental states are neither true nor false.
P3: ‘God Exists’ or ‘God is supremely good’ is not a claim about the world, but are expressions of non-cognitive mental states.
C: Therefore, God Exists and God is supremely good are meaningful statements.
What is Ayer’s formal argument against the verification of metaphysical statements?
P1: Claims are meaningful if they are true by definition, or verifiable in principle.
P2: Religious claims make statements that are not true by definition.
P3: Religious language makes claims about metaphysical entities.
P4: Metaphysical entities are beyond observation and experience, and cannot be verified.
C1: Therefore, religious claims are not factually significant, because we do not know the conditions for their verification.
C2: Therefore, religious statements such as ‘God exists’ are pseudo-statements.
What is Hick’s formal argument on verification of religious language?
P1: Verification means we can describe a situation in which rational doubt is removed.
P2: In principle, when someone dies, they will encounter and recognise God.
C1: Therefore, in principle, after someone dies, doubt about God will be removed.
C2: Therefore, the claim that ‘God exists’ can be verified in principle by at least one person.
What is Flew’s assertion on the meaningfulness of religious language?
P1: A statement which has meaning can be falsified, a meaningless assertion cannot be falsified.
P2: To falsify a statement is to claim what the world would be like if that statement was false.
P3: Atheists provide many examples of what the world would be like without religious language.
P4: Believers refuse to accept these claims as falsifying, instead they qualify or amend these beliefs.
P5: Furthermore, believers cannot conceive of any examples of what the world would look like is religious claims were false.
C: Therefore, believers’ claims of religion are unfalsified, and therefore have no meaning.
What is Mitchell’s claim about the falsification of religious language?
P1: A meaningful assertion is one which can be falsified.
P2: To falsify an assertion means describing things that count against the assertion.
P3: Believers who assert ‘God loves us’ are aware of the problem of evil and suffering.
C1: However, God loves us is a genuine assertion.
P4: However, believers will not discard their belief, even if evidence counts against it.
P5: This is because of their faith in God.
C2: Therefore, statements such as ‘God loves us’ are genuine assertions which cannot be falsified.
What is Hare’s response to Anthony Flew’s doctrine concerning religious language?
P1: A blik is a foundational attitude that we have about the world, and our beliefs are based upon these.
P2: A blik cannot be falsified.
P3: Religious claims about the world such as ‘God loves us’ are fundamental attitudes about the world.
P4: Religious claims such as ‘God loves us’ cannot be falsified.
C: Therefore, religious claims are expression of a blik.
