Religious Language: Twentieth Century Perspectives

Question 1

the verification principle

Answer 1

“to prove an assertion true”

Question 2

Vienna circle

Answer 2

includes Schlick and Carnap

A circle of logical positivists who spoke about language in general and focused on cognitive assertions.

Question 3

strong verification

Answer 3

only statements which are empirically verifiable are meaningful.
RL does not fall into this category.

Question 4

3 forms of verifiable statements

Answer 4

Shlick
analytic
synthetic
mathematical

Question 5

A.J Ayer

Answer 5

Talk of God must be nonsensical since the “notion of a person whose essential attributes are non empirical is not an intelligible notion at all”. God talk is meaningless.
Just because a word exists it doesn’t mean there is a correspondence in reality.

Question 6

weak verification

Answer 6

being verifiable in principle is sufficient.
Ayer’s principle suggests we do not need to conclusively prove something by a direct observation, we need to suggest how it could possibly be proven/verified for a statement to meaningful.

Question 7

keith ward

Answer 7

the weak verification principle could make anything meaningful.

Question 8

john hick

Answer 8

eschatological verification.
when we die the truth of God’s existence and all other religious statements will be proved true or false.
celestial city.

Question 9

criticisms of the verification principle

Answer 9

it cannot be verified or proven itself. how can we take the theory seriously when the theory doesn’t apply to the theory itself?
HOWEVER a log pos would reply by saying that it is not a true statement, just a recommendation for the use of words.
it renders emotions, opinions and historical statements meaningless.

Question 10

karl popper

Answer 10

we cannot scientifically verify everything

science is about falsification - not confirmation

Question 11

Antony flew

Answer 11

Statements are only meaningful if it is known that some evidence can count against it.
All religious statements are meaningless because religious believers will not allow anything to count against their beliefs.
religious statements have no facts.

Question 12

The parable of the gardener

Answer 12

demonstrates how believers and unbelievers present different reactions to the same facts.
failure to prove the existence of God does not lead the believer to withdraw their claims.

Question 13

R.M.Hare

Answer 13

A blik is how you view something.
He uses the example of a student who thinks his teacher is plotting to kill him.
Bliks are non-rational and cannot be falsified because they are groundless (aka they are based on no rational or reasonable grounds). Yet Hare argues that even though they can’t be falsified, they are still meaningful to those who believe in them.

Question 14

John hick on falsification

Answer 14

John Hick took Hare’s view and applied it directly to religion.
Religious statements are insane bliks - they may appear meaningful to one person but in reality they aren’t.

Question 15

anti-realist

Answer 15

focuses on whether or not language is correctly use (wittgenstien)
non-cognitive approach to language
“Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use”

Question 16

language games

Answer 16

rules are applied to both
people not in the game don’t understand it and cant criticise it - it will seem meaningless to them (e.g. non believers)
problems occur when people misuse language, or use language outside their set of rules.
individuals cannot create a private religious game.

Question 17

Felicity McCutheon

Answer 17

Drew parallels between games and language.
Meaning of ‘game’.
Different games have different rules.
Games involve participation.
Games are not reality.
Making a wrong move is like applying a word in the wrong way.
‘You can do that’ = ‘you can say that’.

Question 18

Criticisms of language games

Answer 18

Religious believers would say that RL does not depend on context and is true for all.
Who makes the rules?
Isolating for non-believers.

Question 19

Strengths of religious language

Answer 19

Non-cognitive = cant be disproved

Question 20

Basil Mitchell

Answer 20

The partisan and the stranger
Our reasons for doing something may not be clear - but they can still be there, making them meaningful (supports R.M. Hare)