religious language Flashcards
define cognitive views on religious language
-aim to literally describe how the world is
-are true or false
how would cognitivism defend religious language is meaningful
p1-scentences are meaningful if they are statements
p2-expressions of belief about the world are either true or false
p3-‘god exists’ is the claim that god exists independently in the world, reasons can be given to support this (Hick)
c-therefore ‘god exists’ is meaningful
what arguments assume a cognitive view of religious language
-ontological
-cosmological
-teleological
-problem of evil
define non-cognitive views of religious language
-do not aim to literally describe how the world is
-are neither true or false
how would non-cognitivism argue religious language is meaningful
p1-scentences are meaningful if they expressions of mental e.g. emotion
p2-expressions of these non-cognitive mental states are not falsifiable
p3-‘god exists’/’god is good’ are not claims but expressions of non-cognitive mental states
c-therefore ‘god exists’ is meaningful
what argues religious language is meaningless
-verification principle
-falsifiability
-invisible gardener
who comes up with verification principle
-A.J. Ayer
what does A.J. Ayer argue about religious language
religious language is meaningless because it fails the verification principle
define the verification principle
a statement only has meaning if it is either:
-an analytic truth e.g. a triangle has 3 sides
-or empirically verifiable e.g. water boils at 100c
how does the verification principle apply to religious language
-Ayer argues ‘god exists’ is not an analytic truth because ontological arguments fail to prove gods existence from definition of god
-Ayer argues religious statements are not empirically verifiable because there is no test to prove or disprove gods existence (unfalsifiable)
what does Ayers verification principle conclude about religious language
‘god exists’ is meaningless because it is neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable
what’s a response to the verification principle
-it fails at it’s own test
-Ayers claim ‘a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable’ is neither analytic or empirically verifiable
-concludes the verification principle is meaningless
how would Ayer respond to the verification principle being meaningless
its only meant as a definition of meaning not an empirical hypothesis of meaning
define falsifiable statements
there must be some possible observation to prove a statement true or false
-meaningful
what’s an example of a falsifiable statement
water boils at 100c
define unfalsifiable statements
-there is no possible observation to disprove a statement
-meaningless
what’s an example of an unfalsifiable statement
everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds
who argues religious language is unfalsifiable and thus meaningless
Flew
what is Flew’s argument
-invisible gardener
what is the invisible gardener argument
p1-A and B find a random bit of jungle with both flowers and weeds
p2-A says a gardener maintains this bit of jungle, but B disagrees
p3-they keep watch for a gardener, but don’t see one
p4-so they set up other methods (fences, guard dogs) to detect gardener
p5-these methods fail to detect gardener
p6-A says this is because the gardener makes no sound, no smell and is intangible
p7-each time fails to detect gardener, A comes up with an explanation to maintain his claim that there is a gardener
what does A claim about the gardener
-claims the gardener is unfalsifiable because there is no possible empirical test that could disprove it
-means there is no way to prove it either making it unfalsifiable and so meaningless
how do the aspects of the jungle analogy represent god
-invisible gardener represents god
-flowers and weeds represent good and evil
-jungle clearing represents the world
how does Flew’s jungle analogy apply to god
-‘god exists’ is meaningless
-we cant hear, see or feel god just as we cant hear, see or feel the gardener
-if there was a gardener we would see his work e.g. removing weeds
-if god existed you would expect him to remove evil
what does flew’s jungle analogy conclude
‘god exists’ is meaningless just as A’s theory of the invisible gardener
who came up with eschatological verification
Hick
define eschatological verification
a statement that can be verified after death, or at the end of time
how does eschatological verification apply to god
-even if it’s not empirically possible to prove gods existence in this life, it is still possible to prove it in the after life
what’s an example of eschatological verification
-if a person dies they are resurrected and have an unambiguous experience of meeting and speaking with god
-serves as verification ‘god exists’ is both meaningful and true
what happens if there is no after life (eschatological verification)
-cannot disprove/prove that god exists as such experiences would be impossible
-if no afterlife and no empirical evidence in this life to prove god exists/doesn’t exist, Ayer and Flew are correct to say god is unfalsifiable
what does Hicks eschatological verification conclude
shows ‘god exists’ is verifiable and meaningful if true, but unfalsifiable and meaningless if false
who came up with the resistance fighter argument
Basil Mitchell
what does the resistance fighter argument argue
-in order for a statement/belief to be meaningful it must be falsifiable
-just because there are some observations to counter a belief doesn’t mean we have to withdraw from that belief.
what’s an example of the resistant fighter argument
p1-you are in a war, your country has been occupied by an enemy
p2-you meet a stranger who claims to be leader of the resistance
p3-you trust this man
p4-the stranger acts ambiguously, doing things to support enemy instead of your side
p5-you continue to believe this stranger is on your side and trust he has good reasons for his actions
how does the war example apply to god (resistance fighter)
-stranger represents god
-his actions represent evil
what does the resistance fighter conclude
-we can accept that the existence of evil counts as evidence against the statement ‘god exists’ so it is falsifiable therefore meaningful
define provisional hypothesis
abandoned as soon as the evidence goes against it
define significant article of faith
accepts conflicting evidence but maintains belief and seeks explanation of it
define vacuous formulae
no evidence counts against it, completely unfalsifiable
what does Mitchell argue about provisional hypothesis (resistance fighter)
religious beliefs are not provisional hypothesis like scientific statements
what does Mitchell argue about vacuous formulae (resistance fighter)
religious beliefs are not vacuous formulae
what does Mitchell argue about significant article of faith (resistance fighter)
religious beliefs are significant articles of faith
what is Mitchell’s overall argument (resistance fighter)
p1-we can accept the existence of evil as evidence against gods existence
p2-and so god exists is falsifiable
p3-and so god exists is meaningful
p4-the religious believer can accept there are evidence against the statement ‘god exists’ without withdrawing belief that the statement is true
what does Hare argue
-religious statements are not things that can just be shown to be true or false
-they are part of someone’s belief about the world
-calls these beliefs bliks
what’s an example of bliks
-a student thinks his uni professor is trying to kill him
-you take him to speak to a lecturer and the lecturer acts normal
-the student states that the uni professor was just pretending to be normal
-no amount of evidence will concince the student that his blik is false
how does the uni example apply to god (hare’s blicks)
-bliks are meaningful to the person who holds them, despite being unfalsifiable
-god exists would be unfalsifiable to certain people but it still means something to them and affects their behaviour
what does hare’s blik argument conclude
blik’s are unfalsifiable but still meaningful to the person who holds it
is religious language meaningful (25 mark plan)
p1-intro
-religious language is cognitive and meaningful
define key terms
p2-argument 1
-verification principle (ayer)
p3-response 1
-verification principle is self defeating
p4-argument 2
-invisible gardener (flew)
p5-response 2
-eschatological verification (hick)
p6-argument 3
-resistance fighter (Mitchell)
p7-response 3
-bliks (hare)
p8-conclusion
-religious language is verifiable, falsifiable and meaningful
