Religious Language Flashcards
What is cognitivism and non-cognitivism?
Cognitivism — aims to describe how the world is, statements are either true or false
Non-cognitivism — do not aim to describe how the world is, aren’t true or false, statements express attitudes
What is AJ AYER’s VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE?
AJ Ayer’s verification principle says: a statement only has meaning if it is either:
An analytic truth (e.g. “a triangle has 3 sides”)
Empirically verifiable (e.g. “water boils at 100c”)
Any statement that does not fit these descriptions is meaningless, according to verificationism.
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.
Therefore, according to Ayer’s verificationism, religious language is meaningless.
What is the self-defeating problem of the verification principle?
In response to Ayer’s argument you can argue that Ayer’s verification principle fails its own test.
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 FALSIFIABILITY?
— Falsifiable statements are meaningful and capable of being true or false
— Unfalsifiable statements are meaningless, and not capable of being true or false.
There has to be some possible evidence that could count against that statement – otherwise the statement is meaningless.
E.g “All swans are white” — This statement is falsifiable because it could be proven wrong by observing just one non-white swan. In fact, black swans were discovered in Australia, which disproved the idea that all swans are white.
On the opposite, “Blue is the most beautiful color” — This isn’t falsifiable because beauty is subjective—there’s no objective test or observation that could prove it wrong for everyone
What is ANTONY FLEW’S INVISIBLE GARDENER example to show that religious language is meaningless?
Antony Flew gives the following analogy in an attempt to show that religious language – in particular the statement “God exists” – is unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless:
Two explorers find a jungle clearing with both weeds and flowers. Explorer A believes a gardener maintains it, while Explorer B disagrees. They watch for the gardener but see nothing. Explorer A insists the gardener is invisible, so they set up an electric fence and guard dogs, yet still detect nothing. Explorer A then claims the gardener is also intangible, silent, and odorless. Explorer B asks: how is this different from saying the gardener doesn’t exist? The theory is unfalsifiable—neither provable nor disprovable—making it meaningless.
Flew argues that if someone believes in God no matter what and rejects all evidence against it, their belief is unfalsifiable—meaning it can’t be tested or challenged. Since it can never be proven wrong, he says it becomes meaningless, as it adds nothing new to our understanding of the world.
In case it’s not obvious:
— Jungle clearing = the world
— Invisible gardener = God
—Flowers = Good
— Weeds = Evil
Who claims that religious language is meaningless and meaningful?
MEANINGLESS:
1. A.J Ayer — the verification principle
2. Antony Flew — the invisible gardener
MEANINGFUL:
1. Hick — eschatological verification
2. Basil Mitchel — “God exists” is falsifiable (meaningful)
3. Hare — rejecting Flew’s falsificationist criteria of meaningful
