Religious Language - 20th century Flashcards
verification?
vienna circle
ayer - For a statement to be ‘meaningful’ or ‘factually significant’, it must either be a tautology or provable by sense experience. This approach is inspired by Hume’s fork, who claimed that meaningful language was either a priori analytic or a posteriori synthetic.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 1 -
verification principle
P1 – VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE
A: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP RELIGIOUS CLAIMS
• For the logical positivists there are two types of significant, meaningful propositions:
1. Tautologies – a priori true by definition, “a triangle has three sides”, mathematics is a set of tautologies
2. Empirically verifiable propositions – a sentence whose truth can be determined by observation. Sentences can sound meaningful, but if they cannot be tested and proved then they lack meaning.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 1 - counter argument
reduces language to 2 categories
CA: REDUCES LANGUAGE TO TWO VERY NARROW CATEGORIES
• Art and poetry reveal valuable things about human nature but are neither cognitive nor scientifically verifiable sentences… Logical positivism, by reducing all significant language to two categories, seems to leave no place for valuable and significant contributions to human knowledge
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 1 - counter response
DOES NOT DENY MEANING OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE, JUST LITERAL SIGNIFICANCE
phelan - meaningful language
R: DOES NOT DENY MEANING OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE, JUST LITERAL SIGNIFICANCE
• Although it does not necessarily dismiss the meaningfulness of religion to individuals, religious claims are not claims about the way the world is; The greatest blow to Hegelian optimism was WW1 – people no longer believed in this optimism; logical postivists offered a response by claiming that it was no business of philosophy to say anything about the, world and certainly not to engage in Hegelian speculations. Phelan, “to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy” will achieve meaningful language.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 1 - conclusive response
eradicates a world view, brummer
CR: ERADICATES A WORLD VIEW
• Brummer: To suggest things are only significant if open to scientific investigation seems to be based on its own kind of metaphysical viewpoint that the reality of the world is merely based on science.
Verificationism thus does not present a stronger challenge than falsification, as its requirement of empirical evidence to validate statements is overly narrow and scientifically bias.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 2
falsification principle popper + flew
P2 – FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE
A: DEATH OF A THOUSAND QUALIFICATIONS
• Instead of criticising religious claims on the basis of their lack of empirical evidence (a rather paradoxical notion), falsification arguably presents a stronger challenge on the basis that it highlights how “God talk dies a death of a thousand qualifications”
• The falsification theory was devised by Karl Popper as a demarcation between what is science and what is merely pseudo science. Popper’s point is that if it cannot be subject to tests that would show how it could be false; then this is not a real scientific theory.
Flew applied Popper’s falsification theory (perhaps wrongly) to religious language; claiming believers will allow nothing to falsify their claims thus religious statements are not genuine assertions and lack scientific meaning - he illustrates his point with a story of an “invisible gardener
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 2 - counter argument
scientific criteria to theological language
CA: WRONG TO APPLY SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA TO THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE
• Nonetheless, RM Hare rightly asserts, in response to Flew’s attack on God talk, that he is wrong to apply scientific criteria to theological language. God talk does not claim to be scientific in the first place; Flew’s investigation is failed from the offset.
• His parable of the lunatic, who is convinced that all the dons at the university want to kill him despite there being evidence against this, allows Hare to develop his notion of “bliks” in order to defend God talk. Hare argues we have basic worldviews or beliefs called “bliks”, much like that of the lunatic.
• Bilks are “modes of cognition” which have significant importance to the way one orders their life; religious beliefs therefore, are a set of values and not a set of facts, demonstrating that falsification fails as a critique of God talk as religious bliks are not falsifiable in the way science is.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 2 - counter response
THEISTS BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FACTUAL
R: THEISTS BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FACTUAL
However, the issue is when religious believers make a claim such as “God loves us” they believe they are making a claim about reality as a whole, not just their personal view – the claim “God created the world” is not merely a Blik but a supposed fact. Yet such religious assertions cannot be disproved and thus, according to Popper falsification theory, are not genuine assertions. Challenge to God talk remains, falsification presents a stronger
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 2 - conclusive response
CR: SIGNIFICANT ARTICLE OF FAITH
mitchell
CR: SIGNIFICANT ARTICLE OF FAITH
• Mitchell partly accepts Flew’s point – there is evidence that counts for and against belief in God. Mitchell’s point is the believers acknowledgement of evidence against belief does not count against their beliefs as they are committed by faith to trust in God, “significant article of faith”.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 3
FAITH DIFFERS FROM SCIENCE/ REASON
A: SCIENTIFIC MEANING DIFFERS FROM RELIGIOUS MEANING
swinburne
P3 – FAITH DIFFERS FROM SCIENCE/ REASON
A: SCIENTIFIC MEANING DIFFERS FROM RELIGIOUS MEANING
• Neither can render God talk meaningless as scientific meaning is different from religious meaning. Swinburne states existential statements cannot be falsified but the statements still meaningful- Toys in Cupboard Analogy
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 3 - counter argument
NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION
dawkins
CA: NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION
• Neither verification nor falsification claims religious statements are meaningless, but instead argue God talk is not worthy of serious philosophical/ scientific discussion. Dawkins – failed scientific hypothesis.
ESSAY PLAN - Verification/Falsification/Language games
“assess the belief that god talk is meaningless”
point 3 - conclusive response
R: EXPLORATION OF FAITH
R: EXPLORATION OF FAITH
• Verification and falsification miss the objective of God talk. Significance of religious statements based on faith, which is divorced from science or reason. Both theories are irrelevant what criterion for genuine assertions about God rests on one’s personal understanding and experience of God; something which is not open to public, and certainly not scientific, discussion.
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 1
STRONG VERIFICATION: UTTERLY FLAWED
A: STRONG VERIFICATION: EMPIRICALLY OR ANALYTICALLY VERIFIABLE
P1 – STRONG VERIFICATION: UTTERLY FLAWED
A: STRONG VERIFICATION: EMPIRICALLY OR ANALYTICALLY VERIFIABLE
• For the logical positivists there are two types of significant, meaningful propositions:
1. Tautologies – a priori true by definition, “a triangle has three sides”, mathematics is a set of tautologies
2. Empirically verifiable propositions – a sentence whose truth can be determined by observation. Sentences can sound meaningful, but if they cannot be tested and proved then they lack meaning
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
HEAVILY CRITICISED DUE TO LACK OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION/ FAILS ITS OWN TEST
popper
C: HEAVILY CRITICISED DUE TO LACK OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION/ FAILS ITS OWN TEST
• Rules out historical statements (cannot be there to verify them), and discussion of scientific laws (cannot check every object dropped falls to the floor) and claims about art/ beauty/ ethics
• Karl Popper – we cannot scientifically verify everything – illogical test of meaning!
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
WEAK VERIFICATION
aj ayer
R: WEAK VERIFICATION
• A J Ayer weak verification – verified in principle, stating what evidence would make the sentence probable – both atheists and theists speak nonsense what speaking of God, as they do not even know what God is
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 2
WEAK VERIFICATION: STILL FLAWED AS TREATS RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS AS SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS
A: WEAK VERIFICATION REDUCES LANGUAGE TO TWO VERY NARROW CATEGORIES
P2 – WEAK VERIFICATION: STILL FLAWED AS TREATS RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS AS SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS
A: WEAK VERIFICATION REDUCES LANGUAGE TO TWO VERY NARROW CATEGORIES
• Art and poetry reveal valuable things about human nature but are neither cognitive nor scientifically verifiable sentences… Logical positivism, by reducing all significant language to two categories, seems to leave no place for valuable and significant contributions to human knowledge
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
DOESN’T DENY PERSONAL MEANING, JUST LITERAL SIGNIFICANCE
CA: DOESN’T DENY PERSONAL MEANING, JUST LITERAL SIGNIFICANCE
• Although it does not necessarily dismiss the meaningfulness of religion to individuals, religious claims are not claims about the way the world is; The greatest blow to Hegelian optimism was WW1 – people no longer believed in this optimism; logical postivists offered a response by claiming that it was no business of philosophy to say anything about the, world and certainly not to engage in Hegelian speculations. Phelan, “to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy” will achieve meaningful language.
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
ERADICATES A WORLD VIEW
brummer
CR: ERADICATES A WORLD VIEW
• Brummer: To suggest things are only significant if open to scientific investigation seems to be based on its own kind of metaphysical viewpoint that the reality of the world is merely based on science.
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 3
LANGUAGE GAMES: FAITH DIFFERENT FROM SCIENCE
A: SCIENTIFIC MEANING DIFFERS FROM RELIGIOUS MEANING
swinburne
P3 – LANGUAGE GAMES: FAITH DIFFERENT FROM SCIENCE
A: SCIENTIFIC MEANING DIFFERS FROM RELIGIOUS MEANING
• Cannot render God talk, or any talk meaningless, as scientific meaning is different from religious meaning. Swinburne. States existential statements cannot be falsified but the statements still meaningful- Toys in Cupboard Analogy
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION
dawkins
CA: NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION
• Neither verification nor falsification claims religious statements are meaningless, in the same way that the sentence “I have a pet unicorn” has meaning. Instead it argues God talk is not worthy of serious philosophical/ scientific discussion. Dawkins – failed scientific hypothesis.
ESSAY PLAN - VERIFICATION
“the verification principle is too flawed to be useful”
POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE RESPONSE
R: EXPLORATION OF FAITH
• Verification and falsification miss the objective of God talk. Significance of religious statements based on faith, which is divorced from science or reason. Both theories are irrelevant what criterion for genuine assertions about God rests on one’s personal understanding and experience of God; something which is not open to public, and certainly not scientific, discussion.
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 -
RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS UNFALSIFIABLE; THUS MEANINGLESS
A: FALSIFICATION PRESENTS NO CHALLENGE – NOMA
P1 – RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS UNFALSIFIABLE; THUS MEANINGLESS
A: FALSIFICATION PRESENTS NO CHALLENGE – NOMA
• The very fact Popper’s theory of falsification was posed as a demarcation between statements of science and non-science highlights that falsification need not challenge religious belief, because religious statements are simply not part of scientific study – they are Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magisteria
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
: DEATH OF A THOUSAND QUALIFICATIONS
CA: DEATH OF A THOUSAND QUALIFICATIONS
• “God talk dies a death of a thousand qualifications” – Flew applied Popper’s falsification theory (perhaps wrongly) to religious language; claiming believers will allow nothing to falsify their claims thus religious statements are not genuine assertions and lack scientific meaning.
• He illustrates his point with a story of an “invisible gardener” adapted from John Wisdom of two explorers in a garden. One believes there is a gardener, one does not. They set up trip wires and use sniffer dogs to identify the gardener but not gardener is found. Despite this The believer continues to argue the gardener exists, justifying his existence by adapting the story to claim the gardener is invisible, intangible and works in secret
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
WRONG TO APPLY SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA TO THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE
R: WRONG TO APPLY SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA TO THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE
• Nonetheless, RM Hare rightly asserts, in response to Flew’s attack on God talk, that he is wrong to apply scientific criteria to theological language. God talk does not claim to be scientific in the first place; Flew’s investigation is failed from the offset.
• His parable of the lunatic, who is convinced that all the dons at the university want to kill him despite there being evidence against this, allows Hare to develop his notion of “bliks” in order to defend God talk. Hare argues we have basic worldviews or beliefs called “bliks”, much like that of the lunatic.
• Bilks are “modes of cognition” which have significant importance to the way one orders their life; religious beliefs therefore, are a set of values and not a set of facts, demonstrating that falsification fails as a critique of God talk as religious bliks are not falsifiable in the way science is.
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 -
THE ISSUE WITH FAITH; CANNOT BE FALSIFIED VERIFICATION IS BETTER?
A: THEISTS BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FACTUAL
P2 – THE ISSUE WITH FAITH; CANNOT BE FALSIFIED VERIFICATION IS BETTER?
A: THEISTS BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FACTUAL
• However, the issue is when religious believers make a claim such as “God loves us” they believe they are making a claim about reality as a whole, not just their personal view – the claim “God created the world” is not merely a Blik but a supposed fact. Yet such religious assertions cannot be disproved and thus, according to Popper falsification theory, are not genuine assertions. Challenge to God talk remains, falsification presents a stronger challenge.
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
SIGNIFICANT ARTICLE OF FAITH
mitchell
CA: SIGNIFICANT ARTICLE OF FAITH
• Mitchell partly accepts Flew’s point – there is evidence that counts for and against belief in God. Mitchell’s point, illustrated through his parable of the lunatic, is the believers acknowledgement of evidence against belief does not count against their beliefs as they are committed by faith to trust in God, “significant article of faith”.
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE
REJECTION OF FALISIFCATION IN FAVOUR OF WEAK VERIFICATION
aj ayer
R: REJECTION OF FALISIFCATION IN FAVOUR OF WEAK VERIFICATION
• A J Ayer weak verification – verified in principle, stating what evidence would make the sentence probable – both atheists and theists speak nonsense what speaking of God, as they do not even know what God is
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
BOTH VERIFICATION AND FALSIFICATION CAN BE SEEN AS EPISTEMIC IMPERIALISM
alston
CR: BOTH VERIFICATION AND FALSIFICATION CAN BE SEEN AS EPISTEMIC IMPERIALISM
• Both falsification and verification can be labelled as “epistemic imperialism” (Alston) – they seem to reject all other forms of truth and meaning other than scientific or empirically verifiable knowledge; both Ayer and Flew can be seen as having a blik of their own – their claims are a product of their bliks, which they cannot see past
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 2
THEISTS BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FACTUAL
A: THEISTS BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FACTUAL
• However, the issue is when religious believers make a claim such as “God loves us” they believe they are making a claim about reality as a whole, not just their personal view – the claim “God created the world” is not merely a Blik but a supposed fact. Yet such religious assertions cannot be disproved and thus, according to Popper falsification theory, are not genuine assertions. Challenge to God talk remains, falsification presents a stronger challenge.
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
SIGNIFICANT ARTICLE OF FAITH
mitchell
CA: SIGNIFICANT ARTICLE OF FAITH
• Mitchell partly accepts Flew’s point – there is evidence that counts for and against belief in God. Mitchell’s point, illustrated through his parable of the lunatic, is the believers acknowledgement of evidence against belief does not count against their beliefs as they are committed by faith to trust in God, “significant article of faith”.
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE
REJECTION OF FALISIFCATION IN FAVOUR OF WEAK VERIFICATION
aj ayer
R: REJECTION OF FALISIFCATION IN FAVOUR OF WEAK VERIFICATION
• A J Ayer weak verification – verified in principle, stating what evidence would make the sentence probable – both atheists and theists speak nonsense what speaking of God, as they do not even know what God is
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
BOTH VERIFICATION AND FALSIFICATION CAN BE SEEN AS EPISTEMIC IMPERIALISM
CR: BOTH VERIFICATION AND FALSIFICATION CAN BE SEEN AS EPISTEMIC IMPERIALISM
• Both falsification and verification can be labelled as “epistemic imperialism” (Alston) – they seem to reject all other forms of truth and meaning other than scientific or empirically verifiable knowledge; both Ayer and Flew can be seen as having a blik of their own – their claims are a product of their bliks, which they cannot see past
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 3
ANGUAGE GAMES; MEANING CONDITIONED BY THE GAME YOU PLAY
A: LANGUAGE GAMES – MEANING SUBJECTIVE TO THE GAME YOU PLAY
P3 – LANGUAGE GAMES; MEANING CONDITIONED BY THE GAME YOU PLAY
A: LANGUAGE GAMES – MEANING SUBJECTIVE TO THE GAME YOU PLAY
• For Wittgenstein, there are only the games – we cannot get outside of the games as to the “real” meaning of words meaning and truth exists within a field
• The rules of chess would not apply in a game of football
• There are no right or wrong viewpoints, just different ways of seeing, as illustrated by the duck-rabbit picture
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
FIDEISM
R: FIDEISM
• Suggests neither science or religion can be questioned or debated, as each occupy their own realm, and no one is able to get behind either of the games to justify them. A J Ayer argued that if each language game has its own reality, we are not only committed to accepting talk about fairies and witches, but also accepting fairies and witches exist, as Wittgenstein argued there was a reality within each game!
• Ideas of reality, intelligibility and reason become ambiguous – leads to fideism
ESSAY PLAN - FALSIFICATION
“Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable” “The Falsification symposium presents no real challenge to religious belief”
POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
PEOPLE WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL REASONS FOR THEIR BELIEFS – FAITH IS PERSONAL
CR: PEOPLE WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL REASONS FOR THEIR BELIEFS – FAITH IS PERSONAL
• The very strength of language games is recognising that different games exist outside of your game – the witches and fairies game does not disprove the physics game – Ayer does not have to enter the witches and fairies game!
• Verification and falsification miss the objective of God talk. Significance of religious statements based on faith, which is divorced from science or reason. Both theories are irrelevant what criterion for genuine assertions about God rests on one’s personal understanding and experience of God; something which is not open to public, and certainly not scientific, discussion.
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 1 -
ON-COGNITIVE VIEW OF WITTGENSTEIN (FLAWED)
A: NON-COGNITIVE APPROACH DENIES REALITY OF WORLD VIEWS
don cupitt
P1 – NON-COGNITIVE VIEW OF WITTGENSTEIN (FLAWED)
A: NON-COGNITIVE APPROACH DENIES REALITY OF WORLD VIEWS
• Don Cupitt’s theological non-realist approach to language games denies the objective existence of God, and is instead concerned with the meaning of God within peoples’ lives – there is no God outside of the game; all God is, is the sense of meaning and its impact within the community of belief (expressivism)
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
THEISTS SEE THEIR BELIEFS AS A REALITY
CA: THEISTS SEE THEIR BELIEFS AS A REALITY
• Cupitt’s approach has been attacked by believers as not capturing what they mean by “God”, which they see as a reality – this view of language games belittles, relativizes belief
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE
NON-COGNITIVE APPROACH MISINTERPRETS WITTGENSTEIN
R: NON-COGNITIVE APPROACH MISINTERPRETS WITTGENSTEIN
• A non-cognitive approach comments on and changes the meaning of words, insofar as it suggests “God” has no objective meaning, whereas Wittgenstein himself commented philosophy “leaves everything as it is”. A Wittgensteinian approach is not “trying to innovate or reform, but just to look, see and describe” (Mikel Burley)
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 1 - CONCLUSVE RESPONSE
LANGUAGE GAMES FAILS TO ASSERT ANYTHING
CR: LANGUAGE GAMES FAILS TO ASSERT ANYTHING
• One might ask what exactly language games does, if it merely looks, sees and describes…
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 2
CHOOSING BETWEEN GAMES, FIDEISM
A: HOW ONE WE JUSTIFY PLAYING ONE GAME OVER THE OTHER
P2 – CHOOSING BETWEEN GAMES, FIDEISM
A: HOW ONE WE JUSTIFY PLAYING ONE GAME OVER THE OTHER
• For Wittgenstein, there are only the games – we cannot get outside of the games as to the “real” meaning of words meaning and truth exists within a field
• There are no right or wrong viewpoints, just different ways of seeing, as illustrated by the duck-rabbit picture
• Yet if all language games are autonomous and equally justified, how can be justify playing one over the other?
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
PLAY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS
CA: PLAY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS
• The very term “meaning” Is conditioned by the language game we play – meaning within a religious form of life is not synonymous with meaning in a scientific textbook different values/ reasons for play
• Patrick Sherrey argues we can look at questions of why games are played, just not questions of truth
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE
FIDEISM
R: FIDEISM
• Suggests neither science or religion can be questioned or debated, as each occupy their own realm, and no one is able to get behind either of the games to justify them
• A J Ayer argued that if each language game has its own reality, we are not only committed to accepting talk about fairies and witches, but also accepting fairies and witches exist, as Wittgenstein argued there was a reality within each game!
• Ideas of reality, intelligibility and reason become ambiguous – leads to fideism
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
PEOPLE WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL REASONS FOR THEIR BELIEFS – FAITH IS PERSONAL
CR: PEOPLE WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL REASONS FOR THEIR BELIEFS – FAITH IS PERSONAL
• The very strength of language games is recognising that different games exist outside of your game – the witches and fairies game does not disprove the physics game – Ayer does not have to enter the witches and fairies game!
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 3
USE NOT MEANING
A: MEANING DERIVED FROM USE
dz phillips
P3 – USE NOT MEANING
A: MEANING DERIVED FROM USE
• D.Z. Philips – the philosophers task was not to comment on the truth of religious statements, but to question and clarify their meaning within the discourse of faith
• “Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use” – the meaning of words are not rigid or fixed, rejection of the idea that there is one logical language
• To say “God exists” is a sentence about the reality created by the language game she plays – thus the meaning of the word “God” for the believer is utterly different from the non-believer!
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
ISSUES WITH REALITY
CA: ISSUES WITH REALITY
• Yet if we say God is a reality in the theist game, but a non-reality in the atheist game, surely this defeats the term “reality” – there seems to be a contradiction
ESSAY PLAN - WITTGENSTEIN
POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
CLARIFYING UNDERSTANDING, PREVENTING FLAWED PHILOSOPHICAL ATTACK
R: CLARIFYING UNDERSTANDING, PREVENTING FLAWED PHILOSOPHICAL ATTACK
• Must realise different games are being played to avoid conceptual confusion arising from language – the atheist may be playing a scientific game, treating god as a scientific hypothesis (Dawkins) whilst the believer is treating God as a religious concept – unless we take care to analyse how terms are being used, we may misunderstand what is meant and attack them for the wrong reasons The God Dawkins rejects is not the God the believer refers to
ESSAY PLAN - COGNITIVE (AQUINAS) VS NON-COGNITIVE (WITTGENSTEIN)
POINTS ?
LOA 1: Argue in line with religious belief for a cognitive approach.
LOA 2: Argue in line with the logical positivists and reject religious language.
LOA 3: Argue in line with Wittgenstein – although not a non-cognitive interpretation, “philosophy leaves everything as it is”.
