Religious Language

Question 1

What is logical positivism

Answer 1

• The belief that sentences are only meaningful if they are connected in some way to the world and our impressions
• This is because we would know how to check whether it was true or not and be able to verify it

Question 2

What do logical positivists/cognitivists argue

Answer 2

Sentences are only meaningful if the are connected to the world and they describe the world either truly or falsely

Question 3

What do non cognitivists believe

Answer 3

• Statements can be meaningful without referring to the world or being shown to be true or false
• The complexity of language and context within the language emphasises meaning

Question 4

Ayer’s verification principle(intro)

Answer 4

• Works similar to a test

* A sentence must pass if it is to count as genuinely meaningful

Question 5

Ayer’s verification principle-when is a sentence meaningful?

Answer 5

A sentence is meaningful only if:
•It is analytic
•It is verifiable (can be proved to be true or false)
If it is neither one of these then it is not meaningful

Question 6

What is Ayer’s verification principle based on

Answer 6

Hume’s fork:
•We can check the truth of analytic statements by looking at the meaning of the words contained
•We can check the truth of synthetic statements by observing the world to see if the statement is true or false
•These statements are ‘factually significant’
•If a proposition is not analytic and there is no empirical way of discovering the truth: statement is meaningless

Question 7

What does statements does Ayer accept in terms of literal significance

Answer 7

• Ayer accepts statements may have literal/emotional significance and may strike a chord within us
• However they are not factually significant
• Meaningful statements must make claims about the world

Question 8

Ayer’s view on generalisations and scientific claims

Answer 8

• Generalisations such as ‘all things fall down’ and most scientific claims can never be proved to be true or false
• As it is not possible to test this theory
• Sub-atomic particles such as protons are not directly observable
• So their existence cannot be verified

Question 9

Ayer and weak/strong verification

Answer 9

• He differentiates between weak and strong verification
• Scientific theories fulfil the weaker condition:
• A statement is meaningful if there are some observations that can establish a probable truth
• If scientific claims can be verified in principle they still have meaning

Question 10

Ayer’s view on God and religion

Answer 10

• Religious language statements are meaningless
• Most claims are about a transcendent being
• A transcendent being would be outside human experience
• Anything that lies outside experience is meaningless
• Therefore the claim ‘God exists’ is meaningless

Question 11

Criticisms of verification principle

Answer 11

• However the claim ‘God does not exist’ is equally meaningless
• This is because we have no experience of the fact that God does not exist
• The principle is far too strong as it makes our inner feelings and sensations meaningless
• E.g we cannot prove that Mona Lisa is beautiful through the principle
• Ayer’s notion of meaning is different from the one we operate with in everyday life
• So the effects of his principle diminishes human thought

Question 12

Hick’s view on the verification principle

Answer 12

• Hick agrees that statements that are factually significant are meaningful
• He argues that factual significance is judged by whether a proposition makes a difference to our experience of the world
• Religious language can never be falsified but it can be verified eschatologically (after death)

Question 13

Hick’s parable of the Celestial city

Answer 13

• Two men are travelling along a road
• One believes it leads to the celestial city
• The other believes it leads to nowhere
• There is only one road however so both must travel it
• There are pleasantries and obstacles in the journey
• However since one has no choice in the matter he enjoys the good and endures the bad
• When they turn the last corner it will be apparent that one of them was right whilst the other was wrong

Question 14

Hick’s point of the parable

Answer 14

• The parable points to the possibility of eschatological verification
• This is verification of the a proposition after death
• Such experience would remove rational doubt about the existence of heaven

Question 15

Criticisms of Hick’s parable

Answer 15

• Hick’s claim relies on assumptions about belief in God or heaven
• We have logical problems over God’s attributes
• Aquinas’ also claims that God is so great that he is beyond human comprehension
• Therefore it is not clear that we would be able to recognise and verify beliefs about God after death
• His case relies on there being a connection between our personality in this life over into the afterlife
• This may not be warranted
• If I am to leave my earthly body when I go to heaven I may not be the same person

Question 16

Flew’s falsification principle-The parable of the gardener

Answer 16

• Two people find a clearing in the jungle containing flowers
• They do not observe the gardener visiting to tend the flowers
• The sceptic reckons that there is no gardener
• The believer concludes that the gardener must come at night
• They both watch all night but no one appears
• The believer claims that the gardener is invisible
• They both set up electric fences and defences
• There is still no evidence of the gardener
• The believer claims that the gardener must also be odourless and invisible
• The sceptic asks how claiming that there is an invisible intangible and odourless gardener
• Is the same as saying there is no gardener

Question 17

Flew’s falsification principle point

Answer 17

• If we repeatedly qualify our original assertions when seeing new evidence to avoid our belief
• Then our assertions suffer a ‘death by a thousand qualifications’
• In other words, the assertion as been qualified so much that it becomes meaningless
• For example Hick and Platinga argue that God’s love is compatible with the existence of evil
• Flew claims that no amount of evidence that God does not love us will ever lead believers to give up the assertion that God does love us
• To know the meaning of a claim you also need to know the meaning of the opposite
• If you cannot imagine any situation where the claim may be false (E.g God does not exist) then it has no factual significance
• Therefore it is not meaningful
• If believers continue to qualify their claims despite being given falsifying evidence:
• They are not making any meaningful claims at all

Question 18

Hare’s bliks-The Parable of the lunatic

Answer 18

• A paranoid student is is certain that his professors are out to murder him
• No matter what his friends do to shake his belief, he is absolutely certain in his belief
• His reaction will still be the same even if friendly professors are introduced to him
• The claim that his proffers are out to murder him is unfalsifiable
• However it counts as an expression of the students conviction rather than an assertion
• It is more of a interpretation that underpins his other beliefs

Question 19

Hare’s bliks point

Answer 19

• Hare uses the word ‘blik’
• A blik is an underlying perspective which frames our view at the world
• It is not verifiable or falsifiable yet it is as meaningful
• The paranoid student has a deluded and wrong blik that his professors want to kill him
• His friends and professors have a correct blik which is that they do not want to kill the student
• These bliks do not state facts about the world
• However they go beyond that to express our attitude to facts
• When believers claim ‘God exists’
• The are expressing a belief which informs their view on the world
• Their fundamental nature of the belief ensures that it remains subjectively meaningful
• Therefore you can have meaningful language that is not verifiable or falsifiable

Question 20

Criticisms of Hare’s bliks

Answer 20

• When believers make a statement involving religious ideas

* They are making assertions about the world instead of stating bliks

Question 21

Mitchell’s parable of the partisan

Answer 21

• Imagine your country has been invaded and you become a partisan
• In other words you become a member of the resistance movement hoping to overthrow invaders
• You meet a man claiming to be a resistance leader
• He convinces you to trust him and the movement
• You sometimes see him act against the movement
• This brings doubt to the claim that he is a resistance leader
• However you are reluctant to give up the belief that he is on your side
• Even though you see many things that suggest you are wrong
• E.g you may think that he is doing this to avoid detection by authorities

Question 22

Mitchell’s point

Answer 22

• The belief in the absence of concrete evidence is not unreasonable
• Flew insists a belief depends on evidence to be meaningful
• However Mitchell argues that belief can be a matter of trust and commitment
• A believer can trust in their relationship with God similar to how the partisan trusts the stranger
• The doubt in your own belief shows that your belief is falsifiable:
• You can imagine circumstances under which you would give up your belief
• Therefore the belief that ‘God exists’ is falsifiable (there are trials of faith) and it is verifiable(after we die)
• Therefore religious statements can be meaningful