Religious Language 20th century (Chapter 5,6 and 7) Flashcards
What did Karl Popper say about Falsification threatening religious belief?
He was a falsificationist
Said falsification involves the demarcation between statements of science and of other things.
This shows religious statements are just categorised seperately, links to Gould’s idea of ‘non-overlapping mysteria’ and so doesn’t threaten religious belief.
What does Flew say about falsification threatening religious belief?
Because God talk is unfalsifiable, it is actually meaningless because he takes the view that truth can only be found in empirically sense-observed statements. so falsification does challenge religion
(new paragraph) on the other hand, Flew’s view could be labelled as ‘epistemic imperialism’ (an idea of Alston’s) where people ignore all views but their own and go on a ‘crusade’ to endorse it.
How does Anthony Hare build on from flew’s ideas being seen as epistemic imperialism on Falsification?
Hare’s “blik theory” - every person has their own personal worldview - a blik - that is not falsifiable and cannot be tested.
As a result, Hare says Flew’s and all falsificationists ideas are a product of their own bliks and so hold no authority over one another or religious belief.
How does Flew respond to Hare’s blik theory criticism?
Says Christians do not see their views as a blik but as an assertion - something that can be falsified.
e.g. “God created the universe”
This in itself is wrong due to unfalsifiablity of claims like this and so falsification does challenge religious belief
How is Wittgensteins language games relevant regarding falsification?
Idea that when people talk about something they are taking part in a game, where the words used take on a meaning that makes sense in that particular field but no other. e.g. rules of chess not relevant in football.
In a similar way, falsificationsts are taking part in a language game of science and not religious belief.
How does Wilson and Kant back up Wittgenstein’s language games?
Wilson - God is outside of our human understanding - the language game of people, so should not be scrutinised in this way.
Kant - We are not reliable enough to know anything about God, our “Categories of the mind” limits the way we categorise information.
How does Mitchell and Flew counter Wilson and Kant?
Mitchell - Religious people should not make their beliefs “vacuous formulae” that is so vague that they have no impact, in the same way as early astrologers made their views so vague that they could easily be altered.
Flew - Religious believers do the same, God died a “death of a thousand qualifications” because religious people simply change their views to combat criticism.
What does cognitive and non-cognitive mean?
Cognitive = statements that can be proven true and false
Non-cognitive = Makes claims that are to be interpreted in some other way such as metaphors of symbols
What is Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive Language game argument ?
Idea that when people talk about something they are taking part in a game, where the words used take on a meaning that makes sense in that particular field but no other. e.g. rules of chess not relevant in football.
In a similar way, falsificationsts are taking part in a language game of science and not religious belief.
How does Mitchell and Flew counter Wittgenstein Language Games?
Mitchell - Religious people should not make their beliefs “vacuous formulae” that is so vague that they have no impact, in the same way as early astrologers made their views so vague that they could easily be altered.
Flew - Religious believers do the same, God died a “death of a thousand qualifications” because religious people simply change their views to combat criticism.
How does Wilson and Kant back up Wittgenstein’s language games and counter Mitchell and Flew?
Wilson - God is outside of our human understanding - the language game of people, so should not be scrutinised in this way.
Kant - We are not reliable enough to know anything about God, our “Categories of the mind” limits the way we categorise information.
What is Ayer’s theory of verification?
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.
How does Ayer’s theory of verification side with scientific approach?
Ayer’s belief also sides with the scientific approach. He argues that because statements such as ‘God Exists’ cannot be empirically proven and are not analytical (because he rejects the claims of the ontological argument), they are thus meaningless.
How does JH Randall disagree with Ayer?
It is too reductionist and reduces language to less than what it is. Philosophy thus becomes reduced to analysing syntax. On the other hand, it does provide a convenient and basic grounding for deciphering fact from meaningless statements, by examining language on a purely analytical form.
How does John Hick refute the notion God’s existence cannot be proven by senses, building on from Randall?
He gives a parable of the Celestials city, claiming that one would know its existence when one gets to the end of the road. Similarly, God’s existence could be eschatological verifiable when we die. It is implied here that Ayer is in the problem of reification, treating an abstract concept as though it is concrete. Although one religious experience is not verifiable, collectively they can prove empirical proof for the statement ‘people experience God’. When analysing the transcendent, Ayer must acknowledge other factors than just logic.
