Religious Language Flashcards
What question does this topic ask?
Is religious language meaningful ?
What is AJ Ayer’s verification principle ?
Influenced by logical positivism
The only statements that can have meaning are
Synthetic - verified by sense experience
Analytic - true by virtue of definition
Mathematical
Every other statement is meaningless
Claims made about god are often seen as cognitive but they are non cognitive so not verifiable and therefore meaningless
How does AJ Ayer try to prove that the idea of god is meaningless?
Rejects God’s attributes of
Transcendence - you can never test a transcendent being so the concept is meaningless
Omni attributes - we can never experience infinite powers.
“God exists” seems like a synthetic proposition but you can never test empirically so it’s not. No meaning
Claims made about god are often seen as cognitive but they are non cognitive so not verifiable and therefore meaningless
What is the criticism of the verification principle that some statements should still be accepted as meaningful
Some statements , Like historical claims, would therefore be ruled out as meaningless according to the historical principle as they can’t be proven with empirical evidence
I.e. Richard Swinburne “all ravens are black”
Or “battle of Hastings was in 1066”
What is AJ Ayer’s response to to the criticism that some statements should be accepted as meaningful
He put forward the weak verification principle
Allows statements to have meaning if the means to which a statement can be verified are known
Language could be meaningful if it is “in principle” verifiable. Despite being near impossible to measure. Therefore historical statements and Swinburne’s “all ravens are black” become meaningful statements
But religious statements are still meaningless as the metaphysical is still not verifiable “in principle”
What is the the most successful criticism of the verification principle (self refuting)?
The verification principle under its own rules should be refuted.
The language in the verification principle is not analytic, synthetic nor mathematic so is meaningless!!
What is the criticism of the verification principle about art and beauty?
The verification principle seems to take us too far from how we ordinarily use language
It would rule out morality, beauty and art as meaningless language
Poetry operates with metaphors and emotion, this level of complexity would bit pass Ayer’s test but is the deepest source of meaning for human beings
Perhaps is religion??
What does Ayer say about his own verification principle
“Nearly all of it was false”
How would Hick’s argument that religious statements are verifiable criticise the verification principle?
He says that religious statements have meaning for as they are verifiable eschatologically (after death)
What are the 4 key speakers in the university debate?
Anthony Flee
John Hick
Basil Mitchell
RM Hare and Bliks
What is Anthony’s flew’s argument about the meaning of religious language ?
He argues that religious language is meaningless
He said that for a principle to be meaningful, it must be open to falsification. (Popper’s scientific standard for philosophical rigour) for something to be worthwhile it should provide evidence about the world that can be demonstrated to be false. Otherwise we open the floodgates to nonsense
He uses John Wisdom’s parable of the invisible gardener to show that unfalsifiable claims are essentially meaningless.
Two explorers come across a clearing in the jungle with many flowers and weeds growing. One said there must be a gardener, the other says there isn’t. Despite setting up traps to catch it and never seeing the gardener there is no change. The explorer that does thing there is a gardener, despite this proof says the gardener is invisible and insensible to shocks
Religious language is meaningless as there is no proof or evidence for religious unfalsifiable claims
What is RM Hare’s response to Flew’s argument about the meaning of religious language ?
Religious language is meaningful
Hare gives a non-cognitive standpoint account of religious language
Blik -mental filter which is how people view the world and provide meaning to things.
Parable of the lunatic tutor
A lunatic tutor is convinced his students are trying to kill him despite evidence to the contrary. He still believes this. This is a completely unfounded, unfalsifiable claim.
Parable shows that even if someone has a completely unfounded belief, it still has meaning to them so still has meaning
Even if there is no evidence for religious belief, it is still meaningful as it gives people meaning to their lives
What is the criticism of Hare’s argument ?
Some frames works (bliks) would therefore be better for understanding that others
Saying that an ancient tribe’s framework for understanding compared to modern western society would be a mistake.
Our western medicine and modern scientific approach is much better as it improves our lives and predicts the way the world works. This is undoubtably better than an ancient tribe with witches and exorcisms
Flew also attacked Hare
“If hare’s religion really is a block, involving no cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of the creator, then surely he is not a Christian at all?”
What is Basil Mitchell’s argument in the university debate ?
Religious language is meaningful because you cannot definitely prove either side of the debate on god.
He used the parable of the partisan and the stranger. It follows that a partisan meets a stranger that asks him to have faith in him. Despite reasons not to have faith and people telling him not to, the partisan still has faith. It cannot be known whether the partisan was loyal or not as there was evidence for and against the idea.
Even if religious statements are not straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable, they still have meaning as you can never prove either side of the argument of god
What is Hick’s argument in the university debate?
Eschatological verification
Religious language is meaningful as they are
Verifiable after we die
He used the parable of the celestial city to outline this
Two man travel down a long road, one believes there will be nothing at the end but the other believes they will reach a celestial city. Neither of them can know who was right until they get there. Until then they have no choice but to carry down that road
This demonstrates that religious statements will be verified after death so they are meaningful to talk about. They are therefore falsifiable when we die
