Religious Language Flashcards
Verification Principle
Ayer
non-cognitivist
Falsification Principle
Popper
non-cognitivist
Verification Principle
Ayer
A statement is meaningful if and only if:
1. The statement is a product of proper science (empirically verifiable - can be subject to scientific texts)
2. The statement is the result of mathematical logic or reasoning (tautological)
Therefore if a statement is neither 1 or 2 then such is deemed factually meaningless.
Principle of Verification ensures its result is meaningful, a statement can be false yet still fall under the category of meaningful.
Falsification Principle (improved version of verification)
Karl Popper
The falsification seeks to distinguish good science from bad science, according to this principle:
- Good science is falsifiable (there’s a clear test of how a particular hypothesis may be ruled out as false)
- Bad science is unfalsifiable (no clear test is forthcoming, for example the freudian interpretation of dreams is bad science)
when applied to religious language and belief, it is shown as bad science.
Flew’s Challenge - explanation
Flew’s Challenge rests upon the principle of falsification. It’s the idea that if someone has a belief and can’t describe a set of circumstances where they would stop believing it (the situation must be unambiguous, inter-subjective and fully describable without the use of religious language) if not it’s unfalsifiable.
Flew’s Challenge - parable
Basis of Flew’s challenge is a parable told by John Widson:
- two explorers came upon a clearing in the middle of forrest contains flowers and many weeds.
- one says, ‘some gardener must tend this plot.’ The other disagrees (sceptic)
- they watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer suggests ‘he’s an invisible gardener.’
- they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. Still nothing.
- Believer still persists in his faith of an invisible, soundless, scentless and intangible gardener.
- Sceptic asks ‘how does an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?’
Hare (cognitivist)
response for religious language
two parables
1. man with a pathological but irremovable conviction that all dons are out to kill him - belief unshaken by the apparent kindness dons show to him
- man suspicious about the strength of metal to the extent that he drives his car with fear the the metal parts suddenly become elastic.
both men have a ‘blik’ - presuppositions that affects their behaviour and how they judge situations around them.
Religious beliefs are a sort of blik; they are what one evaluates reality with, rather than something one check against reality
Mitchell (non-cognitivist)
better response than Hare
Resistance leader (the believer) meets a stranger who claims to be on the side of the resistance and is very impressed with him the actions of the stranger seem to benefit the resistance at times, but at other times seem to favour the opposition. It's not clear what side he's one.
Mitchell’s point is that the believer allows much to count against his beliefs (betrayals of the stranger) but he doesn’t allow anything to count finally and decisively against the belief. Mitchell can be seen as saying that faith or the encounter the believer has (religious experience) is of such a quality that it will not be abandoned in the face of contrary evidence - rather such evidence is a ‘test of faith’
Hick - Eschatological Verification
response to Flew’s Challenge
Argues that if a belief can only be meaningful if it can be verified or falsified then religious belief can certainly be verified. The idea of an after life can be examined and the occurrence of it would support religious language.
parable of two travellers - disagree on where they are going, it’s not the journey that decides (empirical evidence) but the final destination.
