Religious Language Verification, Falsification And Language Games

Question 1

Logical
Positivism

Answer 1

The philosophical approach taken by the Vienna Circle: a group of philosophers who met in that city during the 1920s / 1930s. The Logical Positivism theological language is literally meaningless, because it is neither a matter of logic nor provable by empirical evidence.

Question 2

Verification
Principle

Answer 2

Statements are only meaningful if they are true by definition (tautology) or empirically verifiable. There are strong and weak forms.

Question 3

Cognitive

Answer 3

A statement / language is cognitive if it conveys factual information. Most cognitive statements are synthetic - they are shown to be true or false depending upon synthetic

Question 4

Non-cognitive

Answer 4

A statement / language is non-cognitive is to say that it is inappropriate to ask whether it is factual. It may contain emotions or make moral claims.

Question 5

Falsification
Principle

Answer 5

Statements are factually significant if and only if there is some form of evidence which could falsify it.

Question 6

Eschatological
Verification

Answer 6

Hick’s view that the ‘facts of the Christian religion will be verified or falsified at death.

Question 7

Blik

Answer 7

Hare’s idea of a framework of interpretation: a view of the world that is non-cognitive and non-falsifiable.

Question 8

Language game

Answer 8

Wittgenstein’s term for the idea that language has meaning with a particular social context, each context being governed by rules in the same way that different games are governed by different rules. The meaning of a statement is not defined by the steps you verify or falsify it, but by the context in which it occurs, so use and context govern meaning.

Question 9

Analogy

Answer 9

An attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand by comparing it with something that is more securely within our reference-frame.

Question 10

Apophatic /
Via Negativa

Answer 10

From Greek ‘to deny’. The denial of a positive description of God. The ‘negative way’ - you can only say what God is NOT, rather than speaking in positive terms.

Question 11

Cataphatic /
Via Positiva

Answer 11

From Greek for ‘affirmation’. The idea that we can talk about God in positive terms.

Question 12

Language: Cognitive

Answer 12

Language is cognitive if it conveys factual information.

Most cognitive language consists of synthetic statements - they can be shown to be true or false depending upon empirical evidence.

For example:
‘The Houses of Parliament are located in Westminster’

Question 13

Language non cognitive

Answer 13

Language is non-cognitive if it does not convey factual information.

Non-cognitive statements may convey emotion, give an order, make a moral claim, express or a wish.

For example:
‘I don’t like it when people steal!’

Question 14

Who is AJ Ayer

Answer 14

-British Atheist Philosopher (1910 - 1989).

-Empiricist, Emotivist and Logical Positivist.

-developed a version of the verification principle for verifying wether statements are meaningful.

Question 15

The verification principle AJ Ayer: Logical positivism

Answer 15

-Originated from the Vienna Circle in early 20th century.

-All meaningful statements are verifiable, they are analytic (a triangle had 3 sides) or synthetic (confirmable by empirical observation/experiment)

-Scientific knowledge is the only kind of meaningful, factual knowledge and all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.

-central rule is verification principle

Question 16

What is the Verification Principle?

Answer 16

-Two-pronged test that asks two questions of any statement in order to determine its ‘meaningfulness’:

1. Is it true by definition? (Analytic)
2. Is it verifiable? (Synthetic)

Any statement which fails the test is meaningless, and so should not be taken seriously (because it has no meaning). It is ‘nonsensical and utterly irrelevant.

Question 17

AJ Ayers verification principle simplified

Answer 17

Verification in practice: When there is direct sense experience to support a statement.

Verification in principle: When we know how a statement can in principle be tested empirically (e.g. ‘there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy’ - we know it could one day be possible to empirically verify this with sense experience).

Question 18

AJ Ayer quote verification principle

Answer 18

‘No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess any literal significance
(AJ Ayer).

Question 19

Verification principle
What is the implication for theists?

Answer 19

-religious language is meaningless and deemed ‘nonsensical’

-Ethical statements are meaningless and simply expressions of emotion

Question 20

Verification principle strengths

Answer 20

-It takes seriously the importance of empirical evidence. In the modern world, ‘people value ideas for which there is evidence’ (AJ Ayer). Our society values empiricism.

-Consistent with the empirical ideas of John Locke and David Hume, who argue that truth and knowledge are acquired via our senses.

-Verificationism fits with a scientific understanding of reality.
It restricts meaning to whatever we have, or can in principle have, scientific evidence for. This is helpful because it will ensure that we do not imagine we are talking about reality when we have no evidence to think that we are.

Question 21

Verification principle weaknesses

Answer 21

-The Verification Principle fails its own test - it is neither analytic / empirically verifiable. Therefore, the Principle itself is meaningless!

-Original Principle has been criticised as too rigid / narrow.
For example, some scientific or universal statements may be rendered ‘meaningless’ because they cannot be verified in practice.

-Many philosophers believe ethical, religious and aesthetic statements are meaningful - even if just to those who make them (Language games).

-Hick supports the verification principle but argues that religious claims ARE verifiable. Religious statements are meaningful eschatologically.

Question 22

John Hick: Eschatological Verification
Response to verification argument

Answer 22

• The Celestial City represents Heaven.

• Hick is arguing religious statements are verifiable / falsifiable - after death.

• The original Verification Principle is too rigid/narrow and too quick to dismiss religious statements.

• Believing in God is a view and commitment that influences everything and is meaningful in a Believer’s life.

• Their religious statements WILL be verified / falsified after death.

• Because of the prospect of eschatological verification, religious statements can be considered meaningful when they are made during this lifetime. These statements having meaning for religious believers.

Question 23

Karl Popper falsification principle

Answer 23

-Suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.

-It is a way of demarcating science from non-science.

-For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses.

Question 24

Flew falsification principle

Answer 24

-Flew expands on popper. He says that any statement that fails the Falsification Principle is meaningless.

-A statement is factually significant
ONLY if there is some form of evidence which could FALSIFY IT.
(You must be able to say what would prove it to be incorrect)

Question 25

Falsification argument theists

Answer 25

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE IS NOT FALSIFIABLE BECAUSE THEISTS ARE ALWAYS QUALIFYING THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT GOD. THEY SHIFT THE GOALPOSTS AND SO RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE BECOMES MEANINGLESS.

Question 26

Falsification argument flew quote

Answer 26

“The death of God by a thousand qualifications”
Anthony Flew.

Question 27

Falsification Principle - Parable of the Gardener

Answer 27

In the parable:
-The gardener stands for God
-The garden represents the world
- the flowers and weeds stand for what the believer sees as order and design in the universe.

The 1st explorer / Believer represents theists
The 2nd explorer / Sceptic represents whose who are sceptical about God’s existence (atheist/agnostic).

By the tests of keeping watch, electrifying the fence and using bloodhounds, the explorers are using sense experience to detect the gardener: but no empirical tests show that he is present.

Instead of accepting that there is no gardener, the Believer instead qualifies what they mean by ‘gardener’. they change their definition and understanding….
The gardener cannot be seen, so the believer says that he is invisible.
Next, they add that gardener cannot be touched, so the believer says that he is intangible.
Then, the gardener cannot be discovered via sense experience, so the believer says he is eternally elusive.
By the end, there seems to be nothing left of the original assertion that there is a gardener - so that assertion has been ‘killed by inches’.

For Flew, the gardener’s existence ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications’ because every time he fails

Question 28

Flew -parable of gardener

Answer 28

Flew’s argument is that the believer in the parable will allow nothing to falsify his belief that there is a gardener who loves and looks after his garden.

• In the same way, the religious believer will allow nothing to falsify his belief that there is a God who loves and looks after the world.

• Statements about God are therefore meaningless - if you do not admit that there is no sort of evidence that could falsify your belief, then you might just as well believe anything that you like.

Scientists do not repeatedly qualify their hypotheses. They establish the hypothesis and then test empirically whether it is true / false.
• They do not keep changing it to ensure that it is always proven correct.
• In other words, their language is
falsifiable…and therefore meaningful

Theists will alway qualify

Question 29

Evaluating the Falsification Principle STRENGTHS

Answer 29

-Falsification is in accordance with science - It restricts meaning to whatever we have scientific evidence for, which reflects the emphasis on empiricism (‘epistemic imperialism’) in 21st century life.

-Falsification captures how science is done better than Verification. This is because scientists don’t only look for verifications of a theory, they try to test and disprove it too by looking for falsifications of it.

-Falsification is a perfect test of whether a person’s belief is about reality or not. If someone seems like they are just holding onto a belief because of faith without any reason, you can ask them what it could possibly take for them to change their mind. A person with a rational belief based on evidence will be able to answer that question.

Question 30

Evaluating the Falsification Principle WEAKNESSES

Answer 30

-The Falsification Principle cannot be falsified. It is therefore not meaningful as it fails its own criteria.

-Religious belief is actually falsifiable: St Paul said ‘if Christ has not been raised, your faith is pointless’. This suggests Flew is incorrect to think religious language is always unfalsifiable

-‘Epistemic Imperalism’ - places too more emphasis on science. Why should a statement be seen as meaningless just because it is unscientific? Wittgenstein’s Language Games shows that statements can have meaning for those within a Form of Life, even if its not verifiable/falsifiable.

-Fideism: Religious belief is about ‘faith alone’. Religious statements are meaningful for those who have faith they are true, despite the fact they cannot be verified / falsified.
Links to Hare’s theory of Bliks - a critique of the FP.

Question 31

Responses to falsification- R.M Hare on ‘Bliks’

Answer 31

Blik - A framework of interpretation a lens through which you see the world. A blik is a world view. It is logically prior to the facts - in other words, you start out with a blik and your blik tells you how to interpret the world, what counts as a fact and what those facts mean.

• It is a way of seeing things: a framework for interpreting the world, and it is non-cognitive. Bliks show how religious statements are meaningful.

Question 32

Hare’s Parable of the Lunatic
Response to falsification

Answer 32

-There may be many different kinds of Blik.

-The lunatic’s Blik is an insane Blik.

-Alternatively, most people have sane Bliks.

• Religious belief is a Blik.
• Religious beliefs are not statements to be falsified - they are Bliks.

-A religious blik is a common and powerful view and if I have one and if I am sincere in believing it, then no amount of persuasion from well-meaning philosophers (such as Flew) will make me think differently.

-Belief precedes observation - it is deeply rooted & deeply held. It then provides the lens through which we interpret the world.

Question 33

Evaluating Hare’s Theory of Bliks STRENGTHS

Answer 33

-The analogy may be seen as successful - it works. This makes a strong case for Hare’s theory of Bliks.

-Hare allows religious language to be meaningful, which makes sense of its influence on people’s lives.

-Consistent with cognitive psychology and the idea of ‘schema’ - the mental framework each person has through which they interpret the world around them.

Question 34

Evaluating Hare’s Theory of Bliks WEAKNESSES

Answer 34

-If religious beliefs are Bliks then they can’t be true or false and there’s no way of judging which one to follow, other than personal preference. This reduces religious belief to a personal preference - theists do believe that they are making truth claims.

-St Paul wrote that ‘if Christ has not been raised, your faith is pointless’ - suggests religious statements can be falsified. They’re not just bliks.

-Dawkins: Bliks or Brainwashing? Richard Dawkins, author ‘The God Delusion’, criticises the teaching of religion to children as indoctrination. You are teaching them to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Question 35

Comparison of Flew and Hare on religious statements
FLEW

Answer 35

FLEW - MEANINGLESS

Religious statements are assertions about the world, so they are intended to be cognitive/factual

Religious believers allow nothing to count against their cognitive/factual assertions, so religious statements are non-falsifiable and therefore meaningless. They die the death of a thousand qualifications.

Question 36

Comparison of Flew and Hare on religious statements
HARE

Answer 36

HARE MEANINGFUL

-Religious statements are bliks. A blik is not a cognitive/factual assertion - it is an interpretation of the world. Religious bliks are therefore non-cognitive and non-factual.

-Religious bliks are non-falsifiable but this is because they are non-cognitive. Nevertheless, they are deeply meaningful. The lunatic may have an insane blik, but his refusal to think differently about Oxford dons shows the depth of that meaning. That belief has deep meaning/significance for them.

Question 37

Flew’s criticism of Hare

Answer 37

“If Hare’s religion really is a Blik, involving no cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of a supposed personal creator, then surely he is not a Christian at all?”

Flew rejected Hare’s view that religious statements are non-cognitive bliks, because believers DO see their statements about God as cognitive.

Question 38

Language Games - Ludwig Wittgenstein
(Basic understanding)

Answer 38

Wittgenstein believes that the meanings of words are not rigid and fixed. What is more important is how a word is used. The meaning of a word is its use. This use of language helps us to create our perspective of the world.

Question 39

Language Games quotes

Answer 39

“The limits of my language are the limits of my world”

“Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use”

Question 40

Language Games - Ludwig Wittgenstein
(Long explanation)

Answer 40

-Wittgenstein argues that language use is like playing a game with rules.

-Wittgenstein observes that religious language and the language of different religious groups are different language games. If we were to say that ‘God allows suffering to develop our character and we will be rewarded in heaven’, this fits with the Christian language game. It has meaning for those who play this game. However, it does not fit with the atheistic or Buddhist language game, so is not meaningful to them.

-Wittgenstein argues that religious statements are subjective

-Religious statements are meaningful to those within the theistic language game.

-Those outside this language game should not seek to critique language within it.

Question 41

Language Games - Ludwig Wittgenstein
(Long explanation)
SIMPLIFIED

Answer 41

-Form of Life - Expression used by Wittgenstein to denote the habitual activities and responses which form the background to any use of language (e.g. Christianity is a form of life).

-Language has a unique meaning and significance for those who belong to the Form of Life and therefore ‘play’ the rules of that language game.

-People belong to multiple different forms of life. They continuously move between these different forms of life, playing by the rules of each respective language game.

Question 42

Evaluating Wittgenstein’s Language Games
STRENGTHS

Answer 42

-Defends religious language from challenges of verification and falsification: Wittgenstein recognises that religious and scientific statements are two different types of things that deserve to be treated differently. Religion is a matter of faith, a totally separate language game to science

-Demonstrates how religious language has meaning for those who use it within their religious language game.

-All religions are equally valid - promotes respect and pluralism.

-Language games accurately captures the way that social life works. We can see that different social settings have different rules (e.g. job interview vs playing football).

Question 43

Evaluating Wittgenstein’s Language Games
WEAKNESSES

Answer 43

-Language games leads to theological anti-realism. When someone says ‘God exists’, they don’t just mean within their form of life - they mean objectively. LG makes it subjective.

-Scientific and religious meaning can be linked. Wittgenstein was wrong to think that scientific meaning is radically distinct from religious meaning. They could actually overlap.

-Could suggest inter-faith dialogue is futile, because you wouldn’t be able to understand each other’s rules.

-Dividing up human social life into different language games could become very messy - are there games within games?
For example, Does every single religious believer operate within their own language game within the religious language game? This makes religion too individualistic.

Question 44

Implications for religious language
Verification principle

Answer 44

It is dismissed as ‘meaningless’ because it does not meet the criteria for verification.
Religious discussion is therefore seen as ‘meaningless’ - result is that religion is not taken seriously as a world view.

Hick’s Eschatological
Verification seeks to show how religious language can be meaningtul.

Question 45

Implications for religious language
FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE

Answer 45

It is dismissed as ‘meaningless’ because religious believers will not falsify their beliefs - instead, they move the goal posts (qualify). This leads to the
‘death of God by a thousand qualifications’ (Flew).

Hare’s Bliks seeks to show that religious language is deeply meaningful for those who have a religious blik.

Question 46

Implications for religious language
LANGUAGE GAMES

Answer 46

Religious language is meaningful for those who belong to a religious Form of Life and ‘play’ a religious Language Game. The meaningfulness of language must be understood in context.

However, it leads to religious anti-realism and suggests that religious statements only have meaning for those who use them. They’re more than that!