religious language

Question 1

VP/logical positivism on religious language

Answer 1

1. if statement can’t be verified empirically/analytically/mathematically it is meaningless (strong VP)
2. “God exists” can’t be verified empirically as it’s metaphysical
3. “God exists” can’t be verified analytically as existence isn’t a part of gods definition
4. “God exists” can’t be verified mathematically as it is not a numerical calculation
5. “God exists” is meaningless

Question 2

critique of strong VP and a.j. Ayer’s response

Answer 2

it means historical statements and scientific theories are meaningless even though we consider them to be meaningful

Ayer: “verified in principle” (mountains on the dark side of the moon)

Question 3

name three critiques (and responses) of verification principle explanation of religious language

Answer 3

1. Hick’s parable of the celestial city: we will achieve verification in the afterlife; eschatological verification
   (Response: god might exist but not in the afterlife)
2. excludes too many of what we think is meaningful e.g. metaphors and the arts
   (Response: they are only meaningless in philosophy, they still hold value outside of philo)
3. VP is self refuting, according to itself it’s meaningless
   (Response: “only analytic/mathematical/synthetic statements are meaningful” is a definition; analytically verifiable.

Question 4

Flew on religious language

Answer 4

Falsification Principle; Karl Popper
Any theory which is impossible to disprove (is unfalsifiable) is no valid theory at all.
For a statement to be meaningful, you must accept that there may be evidence to count against it.
Religious statements are cognitive and attempt to be true, but fail as they’re unfalsifiable.

Parable of the Gardener: to argue for the gardener’s existence, the explorer must change his argument to be that the gardener is intangible, odourless, silent, invisible, which is to argue that there is no gardener at all. the gardener, and God, “dies a death by a thousand qualifications”

Question 5

criticisms of F.P.

Answer 5

Basil Mitchell - Parable of the Partisan and the Stranger
R.M Hare - the Paranoid Student

Question 6

Basil Mitchell’s Parable of the Partisan and the Stranger

Answer 6

the Partisan’s trust in the stranger is unfalsifiable, but it still has meaning as he finds meaning in his unwavering faith in the stranger.

Even if F.P. argues talk of God is meaningless as it is unfalsifiable, it is actually meaningFUL as people find meaning in it via their divine faith

Question 7

R.M. Hare - the Paranoid Student

Answer 7

the student’s belief that the tutors will kill him is unfalsifiable, but it holds meaning because the student’s blik means it is meaningful.

Even if talk of God is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless according to F.P, it is meaningful through the blik of religious people. We all understand what it is to believe in God.

Question 8

essay plan: is religious language meaningful?

Answer 8

VP attempts but fails. FP more successful, and Mitchell’s counter fails because if even talk of God is meaningful outside of philosophy its still meaningless within philosophy. However, Hare shows it is meaningful WITHIN philosophy

strong VP
wrong, it fails to verify history and science
weak VP
wrong, Hick’s celestial city
wrong, Hick’s eschatological verification doesn’t provide solid verif.
VP still wrong because any configuration rules out too much/too little

FP, Popper, Flew, Parable of Gardener
Wrong, Mitchell Partisan and Stranger
Wrong, faith isn’t a part of philosophy
FP still wrong, Hare Paranoid Student
Better than faith as bliks CAN be a part of philosophy