Religious Language

Question 1

Define (general) Verificationism

Answer 1

A proposition only has meaning if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable

Question 2

Ayer : strong and weak verificationism

Answer 2

Strong: practical verifiability, conclusive.

Ex: Joe is 1.80m

Weak: theoretical verifiability, inconclusive, empirical evidence = strong probability, we know how to test it but can’t reach all cases

Ex: All men are mortal

Question 3

Hick: eschatological verification

Answer 3

“God exists” verifiable after death

Question 4

Verificationism Issues (2)

Answer 4

Self-Defeating

Falsification theories better

Question 5

Cognitive Language

Answer 5

Factual assertions that either can be proved true or false, or are treated as such

Question 6

Flew: Invisible Gardner

Answer 6

Invisible, intangible, no scent, no sound gardener is no different of a non-existing one 
// believers hold to their claims no matter what, which makes them unfalsifiable and consequentially meaningless

Question 7

Non-Cognitive

Answer 7

Non-descriptive // attitude towards the world

Question 8

Hare : bliks

Answer 8

Ways of looking at the world which affect the way a believer lives

Question 9

Hare : Lunatic

Answer 9

Bliks as paranoid delusions, hard to discredit even in light of strong evidence however provide moral motivations and self understanding

Question 10

Hare Issue

Answer 10

Incoherent, how can we identify right/wrong, sane/insane bliks? Unfalsifiable

Question 11

Mitchel - Rebel without a God

Answer 11

Spy, resistance leader, faith.
Must allow counter-evidence, but not necessary to discard belief against opposing evidence, as long as acknowledged still meaningful

Question 12

Wittgenstein games

Answer 12

“Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use”
Language happens within other language games.
// coherence theory if truth: something has meaning if it is coherent. Theists and Atheists play different games, leads to misunderstandings

Question 13

Wittgenstein rel. Lang.

Answer 13

Emotional attitude, commitment to live a life according to an understanding.
/// not empirical, to understand, one must understand believers commitments

Question 14

Wittgenstein issues (3)

Answer 14

Cuts entirely from reason, because unfalsifiable
// impossible for cross-dialogue
// characterises religious and personal, even though most believers talk about truth (disagreements doctrines)