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.
