Religious Language

Question 1

Outline The cognitivist vs non-cognitivist perspectives?

Answer 1

• Religious language is the study of what statements (such as ‘god exists’) mean.
• Cognitivists aim to describe how the world literally is. Something is either true or false.
• Non-cognitivists do not aim to describe how the world is and aren’t true or false.

Question 2

Outline and explain the verification principle.

Answer 2

-If you don’t remember from metaethics, AJ Ayer’s verification principle says: a statement only has meaning if it is either:

• An analytic truth (e.g. “a triangle has 3 sides”)
• Empirically verifiable (e.g. “water boils at 100c”)
• Any statement that does not fit these descriptions is meaningless, according to verificationism.

Question 3

Outline and explain the idea of falsification used in Ayer’s argument.

Answer 3

• Part of Ayer’s idea of what it means for something to be empirically verifiable is that it must be falsifiable.
• A theory is falsifiable if it is inconsistent with some possible observation.
• Falsifiability is an explanation of what it takes for a theory to be meaningful. It’s got nothing to do with whether the theory is true or false.
• Falsifiable theories are meaningful and capable of being true or false
• Unfalsifiable theories are meaningless, and not capable of being true or false.

-Ayer argues that “God exists” is not an analytic truth. He also argues that “God exists” is not falsifiable and hence not empirically verifiable. Therefore, “God exists” is meaningless according to Ayer’s verificationism.

Question 4

Outline and explain Hares eschatological verification and how it’s a response to Ayer.

Answer 4

-

Question 5

Outline and explain Flews analysis of falsification. (Wisdoms ‘Gardener’).

Answer 5

-Anthony Flew gives the following analogy in an attempt to show that religious language is unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless:

-Two explorers find a clearing in a jungle. Both weeds and flowers grow here.
-Explorer A says the clearing is the work of a gardener. Explorer B disagrees.
-To settle the argument, they keep watch for the gardener.
-After a few days, they haven’t seen him, but Explorer A says it’s because the gardener is invisible
-So, they set up an electric fence and guard dogs to catch the gardener instead
-But, after a few more days, they still haven’t detected him
-Explorer A then says that not only is the gardener invisible, he’s also intangible, makes no sound, has no smell, etc.
-Explorer B: What is the difference between this claim and the claim that the gardener doesn’t even exist?
-In other words, Explorer A’s theory is unfalsifiable – nothing could possibly prove this theory wrong, but nothing could prove it correct either.
-Because it is unfalsifiable, Explorer A’s theory is meaningless.
In case it’s not obvious:

Jungle clearing = the world
Invisible gardener = God
Flowers = Good
Weeds = Evil
-So, Flew is arguing that religious language is meaningless.

Question 6

Outline and explain Basil Mitchell’s response to Flew’s invisible gardener argument with his partisan argument.

Answer 6

• Mitchell agrees with flew that, in order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be possible for some observation to prove it wrong.
• But just because there are observations that count against a certain viewpoint, doesn’t mean we have to withdraw from that viewpoint
• For example:
• You are in a war, your country has been occupied by an enemy
• You meet someone who claims to be leader of the resistance
• You trust this man, But he sometimes acts ambiguously, doing things that appear to support the enemy
• Yet you continue to believe in him despite this evidence, because you trust him
• So, just because there is some evidence against God (i.e. the existence of evil) doesn’t mean you have to withdraw belief in him

Question 7

Outline Hares response (bliks and lunatic) to Flew and issues arising from this.

Answer 7

• Religious beliefs are not things that can just be shown to be true or false. Instead, they are part of someone’s view of the world – Hare calls these attitudes ‘Bliks’.
• Examples of bliks:
• A paranoid person who thinks university lecturers are trying to kill him. Even if you assure him they’re not trying to kill him (and provide evidence), they still believe it anyway
• When people think they’re ugly when they’re not. No amount of evidence/reassurance will convince them otherwise!
• Disagreements in bliks can’t be settled by appealing to evidence. Yet these disagreements are still meaningful.

-This is kind of cognitivist in that bliks are either true or false. But it’s kind of non-cognitivist as bliks are unfalsifiable – no evidence counts against them.

Question 8

Outline and explain Wittgensteins language games.

Answer 8

• The meaning of a word comes from how it is used – not from some definition.
• There’s a difference between surface grammar and depth grammar. Compare:
• “The bus passes the bus stop”
• “The peace of the Lord passes understanding”
• These two sentences have the same surface grammar, but mean entirely different things (different depth grammar).

Question 9

Outline and explain the boo-hurrah theory.

Answer 9

• Religious language isn’t true or false but it is just a showing of one’s opinion.
• So when I say ‘god exists’ I’m essentially cheering for god and saying you should also believe in him (hurrah)
• By saying ‘god doesn’t exist’ I’m saying boo don’t believe in god. (boo)