Religious language Flashcards
what does religious lang topic explore
debate is about whether such religious language is meaningful or whether it is meaningless.
definition of a cognitive statements
+an example
- Aim to literally describe how the world is
- are true or false
e.g Water boils at 100°c”
“Triangles have 3 sides”
definition of a non-cognitive statemnet
+example
- Do not aim to literally describe how the world is
- aren’t true or false
e.g “dont do that!”
what is AYER’s theory
the verification principle
what is the verification principle
a statement only has meaning of its either an analytic truth or empirically verfiable
apply the verification principle
Applying the verification principle to religious language, Ayer argues that statements like “God answers my prayers” and “God exists” are not analytic truths. Further, they are not empirically verifiable or falsifiable (see below).
Therefore, according to Ayer’s verificationism, religious language is meaningless.
problemns for the verification principle
- self-defeating
self-defeating prob. for verification principle
Ayer’s claim that “a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable” is itself neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable! Therefore, according to its own criteria, the verification principle is meaningless.
what is a falsifiable statement
- Falsifiable statements are meaningful and capable of being true or false
- inconsistent with some possible observation - that has to be some possible evidence againsit the statement
**The statement “water boils at 100°c” is falsifiable because it could be proven wrong by some possible observation. **
what is Flew’s theory
falsification principle
* the invisible gardener
what is the invisible gardener
- Two explorers find a clearing in a jungle. Both weeds and flowers grow here.
- Explorer A says the clearing is the work of a gardener. Explorer B disagrees.
- To settle the argument, they keep watch for the gardener.
- After a few days, they haven’t seen him, but Explorer A says it’s because the gardener is invisible
- So, they set up an electric fence and guard dogs to catch the gardener instead
- But, after a few more days, they still haven’t detected him
- Explorer A then says that not only is the gardener invisible, he’s also intangible, makes no sound, has no smell, etc.
- Explorer B: What is the difference between this claim and the claim that the gardener doesn’t even exist?
- In other words, Explorer A’s theory is unfalsifiable – nothing could possibly prove this theory wrong, but nothing could prove it correct either.
- Because it is unfalsifiable, Explorer A’s theory is meaningless.
apply the invisible gardener to ‘god exists’
So, Flew is arguing that “God exists” is meaningless because it is unfalsifiable in the same way the existence of the invisible gardener is unfalsifiable. We can’t even use the problem of evil as evidence against God’s existence because the religious believer just creates reasons (e.g. free will, soul-making) why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil.
Flew argues that because the religious believer accepts no observations count as evidence against belief in God, the religious believer’s hypothesis is unfalsifiable and meaningless.
arguements for ‘religious lang is meaningful’
these are essentially responses to both Flew and Ayer
- Hick’s eschatological verification
- Mitchell’s resistance fighter
- Hare’s Bliks
what is the eschatological verification
A statement that can be verified after death, or at the end of time.
* Hick agrees 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
what is the resistance fighter arg
Mitchell agrees that in *order for a statement or belief to be meaningful *it must be possible for some observation to count against it (i.e. it must be falsifiable in order to be meaningful).
**
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