religious language Flashcards
What statements have meaning according to AJ Ayer?
Analytic and Empirically Verifiable sentences
What does AJ Ayer believe about Religious Language?
As such, “none of them provide any information about any matter of fact”
Criticisms of Verificationism?
Fails its own test - “A statement is only meaningful if its analytic or verifiable”
Religious Experiences
What is Falsification and what are the nature of such statements?
Falsifiable sentences are meaningful and capable of being true or false
What types of verification are there?
Direct - Verifiable by observation
Indirect - verified if other directly variable evidence supports it
Practical - Verifiable now
In Principle
Strong - No doubt a statement is true using sense experience
Weak - Some relevant observations which make it probable
Does falsification say statements can be meaningful?
Statement can only be meaningful if it is falsifiable
Can be tested
Universe the only thing we can observe so we must test theories against the universe
HICK: ESCHATOLOGICAL VERIFICATION
John Hick agrees with Ayer and Flew that “God exists” is not empirically verifiable in this life.
However, Hick argues that many religious claims are about things beyond the limits of human life. And, he argues, such religious claims are falsifiable because it is possible to verify them after we die.
For example, many theists believe in a life after death during which they will meet or otherwise experience God (which would be unambiguous verification that “God exists” is true).
To illustrate this, Hick tells a parable of a ‘celestial city’:
Parable of Celestial City?
BASIL MITCHELL: RESISTANCE FIGHTER
Criticisms of Falsification?
But, Mitchell argues, just because there are some observations that count against a certain belief, that doesn’t automatically mean we have to reject that belief. Mitchell gives the following example to illustrate this:
You are in a war, your country has been occupied by an enemy
You meet a stranger who claims to be leader of the resistance
You trust this man
But the stranger acts ambiguously, sometimes doing things that appear to support the enemy rather than your own side
Yet you continue to believe the stranger is on your side despite this and trust that he has good reasons for these ambiguous actions
In this analogy, the stranger represents God and his ambiguous actions represent the problem of evil.
Mitchell is arguing that we can accept that the existence of evil counts as evidence against the statement “God exists” (and so it is falsifiable) without having to withdraw from belief in this statement.
Hare criticisms of Falsification?
Blik
Hare argues that religious language is the same: “God exists” may be unfalsifiable to people who have this blik, but it clearly means something to them. For example, people who believe “God exists” might pray or go to Church – it means enough to them that it affects their behaviour.
In other words, a blik is unfalsifiable but still meaningful to the person who holds it.
