Religious Language Flashcards
Cog vs. Non-cog about religious language
Cognitivism: Language is truth-apt, it aims to desvribe the world and can be true or false.
Nom cognitivism: Language is not truth apt, it doesnt aim to describe the world, rather expresses attitude or feelings.
Verification principle
Lamguage only has meaning if it is either analytically true or empirically verifiable. Otherwise it is meaningless.
Falsification
The falsification principle says that a hypothesis is scientific if we can show how it can be proven false. If it cant be shown to be false, then it is pseudo-scientific, like astrology.
P1: A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified, and meaningless one cant be falsified.
P2: An assertion that can be falsified is one that rules out a possible state of affairs (god can rule out suffering).
C1:Therefore, to meaningfully asses a claim, someone must be willing to withdraw their belief if the state of affairs it rules out was to occur.
P3:Religious people cannot conceive of a state of affaira which would lead them to withdraw their claim that “god exists”.
C2: Thereforex when religious believers say “god exists” they do not rule out any states of affairs.
C3: Therefore, the claim “god exists”, qhen made by religious believers, is meaningless.
Eschatological verification
(Hicks response to Ayer)
In principle it is possible to establish the meaningfulness of a religious claim by some verifying experience in the afterline.
Issue with eschatological verification
a. Relies on there actually being an afterlife. If there is not, then the claims arw meaningless. Hick would say that the statement is meaningful, as when someone dies they will be able to verify gods existence by either either entering the afterline or not.
b. It also relies on us being the same person in the afterlife. Hick defines the soul in physical terms as the continuity of behaviour (behaviourism)
Flew on falsification
Statements are meaningful if they are falsifiable. In order for “god exists” to be meaningful, there must be a way of testing it.
Mitchell’s response to Flew
Accepts falsification for meaning, but disagrees that a believer should be willing to withdraw their claim if evidence against it emerges.
The believer has faith in god, which means they are committed to maintaining belief, even if theres evidence against it. Religious claims are therefore meaningful, which due to the believers attitude of faithx cannot be conclusivly falsified.
Bliks and the lunatic
(Hare’s response to Flew)
A blik is a belief that cannot be verified or falsified. And they are meaningful if they affect how we perceive the world, what we do,etc.
He claims that “god exists” is unfalsifiable to the person who holds those beliefs. They are how they peceive the world and cannot be changed by empirical evidence. They are meaningful to the person who holds them as they affect their outlook and behavoiur.
Response to lunatic and blick
a. does this really account for the way people use elgious language? People seem to use it to make genuine asserrsions about the world.
b. How can you tell a delusional blik from a non-delusional one. Could you say that beleiving in god is delusional? Since there is no empirical reason to beleive it?
