Religious Language: 20th Century Perspectives

Question 1

Denotation and connotation

Answer 1

denotation - when a word stands for something, as a label for it, such as window standing for the part of a wall with glads in it
connotation - when a word carries other associations, such as window carrying associations of opportunity

Question 2

Origins of logical positivism

Answer 2

• Ludwig Wittgenstein was keen to establish the limits of human knowledge, his writings were influential to a group known as the Vienna Circle
• Auguste Comte claimed that people’s thinking had passed through various stages over time, he felt the theological era was over and the new scientific era had begun
• the Vienna Circle embraced this and argued that empirical evidence was key to understanding what was meaningful
• based on Comte’s reasoning, logical positivism was born. It was decided that a claim is meaningful if it could be tested using sense experience, this became known as the strong verification principle

Question 3

Ayers approach to logic positivism

Answer 3

• A.J Ayers supported logical positivism and he attempted to set down rules by which language can be judged to see if it means anything
• the main argument of logical positivism he stated was that statements are only meaningful if they are either analytic or synthetic
• analytic statements: a statement that is incoherent to doubt, e.g. a triangle has 3 sides. Also considered tautologies to be analytic, these are statements that are true by definition, such as a bachelor is an unmarried man
• synthetic statements: a statement where the truth of the claim needs to be verified, e.g. the car is green. For these to be considered meaningful, they have to be open to verification through sense experience

Question 4

Ayers verification principle

Answer 4

• Ayer’s verification principle differed from that of the Vienna circles, he said in order for a statement to be meaningful we need to suggest how it COULD be verified. This became known as the weak verification principle
• essentially, Ayer’s version enables us to make statements about the past, other peoples emotions and to make predictions about science. History and science are now meaningful, but religion and ethics sill are not
• However in response to criticism he changed the definition of the verification principle, he stated ”a statement is held to be literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable”
• he suggested a statement was directly verifiable if it was a statement that related to an actual or possible direct observation
• suggested a statement was indirectly verifiable if it is not analytic or directly verifiable but could be verified if other directly verifiable evidence could be used to support it, e.g. black holes cannot be observed but scientists are able to use other directly verifiable evidence to support their existence
• Hick questioned whether the weak verification principle actually renders religious discussion meaningless, he used the analogy of two traveler’s debating whether or not the road they were on would lead to a celestial city, argued this was no different to statements made by believers of God, both can be verified at the end of the journey. He called this eschatological verification
• Swinburne argued its possible for a statement to be meaningful without being verifiable, an example of this is Schrodinger’s cat. This asks you to imagine a cat in a box with a radioactive source, at anytime the source could release particles that kill the cat. We could open the box to tell but doing so could trigger the particles and kill the cat, so we have no way of verifying if the cat is alive or not
• it becomes clear and Ayers himself agrees that the theory can not be adjusted so that scientific and historical statements can be meaningful while ruling out religious claims

Question 5

Wittgenstein’s view on language games and forms of life

Answer 5

• he advocated that we should not talk about what we cannot understand
• he set out to demonstrate clearly what one could use language for, and the limits of language, however he realised he was mistaken in what he originally stated and instead proposed a new theory, that of language games
• the use of language is like partaking in a game, to use a word you have to first understand how it works
• he used the example of chess, you might be told a piece was called a “king”, but without understanding the rules of chess, you could never use the piece
• also stated that to argue how language is used is meaningless, if you want to play the game you must accept the rules
• he said that a language game is the speaking part of a ’form of life’
• a form of life is the foundation out of which language games grow, the collection of cultural practices which embed language games
• as a part of forms of life, language games do not need any justification, we only need to understand what is distinctive about them
• D.Z Philips said religious language can only be judged by those who accept the rules, as such, religious language is meaningful to those who genuinely use it
• e.g. only when you fully immerse yourself in the Christian community can you fully understand what language used really means
  advantages:
• highlights the non-cognitive nature of religious language and distinguishes it from other types of language
• people can be initialised into the rules of language
• means religious language is meaningful to those who use it
  weaknesses:
• doesn’t allow for believers claims to be empirically tested
• completely alienates those outside the game

Question 6

The falsification debate

Answer 6

• falsification is the philosophical theory that an assertion is meaningless if there is no way it can be falsified
• e.g. “fairies live in a forest but only come out when no one is looking” we can’t prove its false, therefore it’s meaningless
• the falsification principle originates in Karl Popper’s philosophy of science
• any theory that is impossible to disprove is no valid theory at all
• Anthony Flew, Richard Hare and Basil Mitchell discussed falsification and religious language in an article
• Flew originally wrote religious language could not be falsified to the extent a religious believer would believe God did not exist, for believers nothing can allow their beliefs to be falsified
• he acknowledged the problem with religious language was that it cannot be falsified
• Flew suggested whenever a religious believer is challenged about God’s existence or nature they modify their language in order to respond to the challenge
• Flew’s point is to ask what would have to happen in order for Gods existence to be disproven, no matter what disasters happen, a believer will continue to argue God loves them
• Hare responded by saying we all have these basic beliefs called bliks
• these are basic beliefs that cannot be altered despite empirical evidence, for Hare, religious beliefs are bliks and we should accept them as such
• Flew responded accepting Hare’s idea if bliks but added Christianity does not appear to be a blik as it makes claims about the universe that Flew calls “assertions”
• these are claims such as “God created the world”, they are saying God really did this and by implication this claim should be falsifiable or testable
• Mitchell then argued religious belief is a choice and that believers accept there are arguments and evidence to refute their beliefs and accept this as a problem, but they don’t allow this to question their faith