Metaphysics of god - Religious Language Flashcards
what do cognitivists believe about religious language
when someone says ‘god exists’ or ‘god loves me’ they’re making statements that are intended to be taken literally as true or false
what do non-cognitivists believe about religious language
non-cognitive statements are neither true or false, so religious statements like ‘god exists’ or ‘god loves me’ express someone’s attitude to the world. e.g ‘i believe in god’ is an expression of a commitment to a certain set of values and way of living
religious language is meaningless - whats ayer’s verification principle
a proposition is only meaningful if its an analytic truth (a triange has 3 sides) or empirically verifiable (water boils at 100degrees c)
rl is meaningFUL - whats hick’s eschatologicaal verification
a statement that can be verified after death or at the end of time
rl is meaningFUL - how does hick argue against ayer
agrees that ‘god exists’ isnt verifiable… in this life. many religious claims are relating to things beyond the limits of human life and such claims are meaningful as its possible to verify them after death.
rl is meaningFUL - whats hick’s parable of a celestial city
two men travelling on the only existing road. traveller a believes it leads to a celestial city whereas traveller b believes it leads nowhere and the journey is pointless. if traveller a is correct, theyll reach the celestial city and he’ll be proved wrong/right , however if traveller b is correct theyll keep going forever and neither will be proved right
rl is meaningFUL - how does hick celestial city relate to religious language
traveler a is the theist claiming ‘god exists’ and traveler b is the atheist, claiming that god doesn’t exist. The theist’s statement can be verified, i.e, if we were to go to an afterlife with God, then we can empirically verify that God exists, and if we don’t go to an afterlife with God, then we can empirically verify that God doesn’t exist. Either way, the statement ‘God exists’ can be falsified and so is therefore meaningful
rl is meaningless - anthony flew: how is the invisible gardener an analogy for a religious statements being falsified
No amount of evidence will ever be able to falsify that the gardener exists if every time the claim was aimed to be falsified, the original concept is constantly diluted to avoid it. Flew claims that this is what theists do when statements such as ‘God exists’ are attempted to be falsified
rl is meaningless - whats falsifiability
part of what it takes for a statement to be meaningful - falsifiable statements are meaningful if they hold the capacity to be proven wrong whereass unfalsifiable statements are meaningless and are impossible to be proved false
rl is meaningless - how is a statement falsifiable
inconsistent with observation - there has to be possible evidence that could go against the statement otherwise its meaningless. e.g ‘water boils at 100°c’ is falsifiable as it can be proven wrong by observation - if we heated water and it didnt boil despite using a reliable thermometer that showed 100°c, then this observation would falsify it therefore the statement is meaningful because theres test that could prove it wrong
rl is meaningless - how does anthony flew argue rl is meaningless
uses ‘invisible gardener’ parable that attempts to show religious language (‘god exists’) is unfalsifible and therefore meaningless
rl is meaningless - whats anthony flews invisible gardener
two explorers find a clearing in the jungle where weeds and flowers grow
explorer a argues its the work of a gardener, but explorer b disagrees
to settle this, they keep watch for the gardener. after a few days they havent seen a gardener but explorer a says its bc hes invisible and so they set up an electric fence & guard dogs to catch him. after more days they still dont catch him and so explorer a says hes also intangible, no sound, no smell, etc. explorer b says whats the difference between this claim and the claim that the gardener doesnt exist?
why does hick argument fail
Hick relies on the existence of an afterlife. Although it’s hypothetically possible that one does exist, without the ability to empirically verify it, then the idea of an afterlife is meaningless itself, and so can’t be used as a premise for Hick’s argument. If we can’t verify existence of an afterlife, then we can’t use this afterlife to verify the existence of God
rl is meaningFUL - whats hare’s response to flew
rejects the idea of falsification and that religious beliefs can be proven true or false, instead arguing that religious language is apart of someone’s blik, and even though it can’t be empirically verified, it doesn’t conclude that it’s meaningless
rl is meaningFUL - whats a blik
someones personal experience of the world thats not held or withdrawn from empirical evidence
rl is meaningFUL - whats hare’s paranoid student example
A student has an attitude of paranoia thinking their professors were trying to kill them, and although it seems like the student just ‘believes’ their professors are going to kill them, really when they say ‘my professors are trying to kill me’ they are just expressing their non-cognitive paranoid attitude (blik). Even if they were taken to his teachers, shown that they’re not attempting to kill them, this person would still have this blik despite empirical evidence or not
rl is meaningFUL - how is a blik still meaningful according to hare
bliks are still meaningful to the person that holds them e.g the paranoid’s student blik clearly means something as its affecting their behaviour, not going to lessons, looking behind them to check teachers arent there
rl is meaningFUL - how does hare apply bliks to religious language
religious people have a religious attitude towards the world when they say ‘god exists’ or ‘god loves me’, that seems like a belief, but is really their own reality. It too affects their behaviour, for example, religious people will attend church, pray multiple times a day, it means enough that it influences behaviour
religious language plan
intro - religious language is unfalsifiable but not meaningless
problem 1 - ayer’s verification
response - hicks eschatological verification
response to hick - god exists isnt verifiable in this life
response 2 - ayers verification principle fails its own argument
meaningless arg- flews invisible gardener
response 2 - hares bliks and university examples
