RL 2 Flashcards
what is the Vienna circle
a group of philosophers who were logical positivists/empiricists in the 20th century
what did the Vienna circle conclude in regards to God
we cannot talk meaningfully about God
what did the Vienna circle begin their investigation with
hume’s fork
what is Hume’s fork
Hume argued all knowledge fell into 2 categories
matters of fact
relation between
what did the logical positivists claim from Hume’s fork
there’s only 2 types of meaningful statements
analytic propositions
synthetic propositions
what is an analytical proposition
true by definition, self evident
e.g. 2+2=4, all bachelors are unmarried men
what is a synthetic proposition
dependent on evidence
e.g. grass is green
empirically verifiable
examples of cognitive and non-cognitive statements,
and logical positivist’s view on the latter
cognitive - Kim k has brown hair
non-cognitive - I like Kim k’s hair
not-checkable, not analytic or synthetic, essentially meaning less
what makes religious language meaningless and what’s this called
the Verification Principle
religious language is meaningless because:
there is no evidence to support religious claims
they’re not true by definition
what is the basis of the verification principle
the meaning of a statement being contained within it being verifiable
if you can’t give an account from sense experience about the truth of a statement, it’s meaningless
who is Schlick
he is in the Vienna circle
founding father of logical positivism and the verification principle
what was Schlik’s take on language
the meaning of a preposition depends on how its verified (verification principle)
if we can’t say how a statement is proved true or false, then it’s meaningless
what are 2 weaknesses of Schlick
we find unverifiable statements meaningful all the time e.g. art discussions
we can’t verify historical statements logically or through sense experience, e.g. Battle of Hastings happening in 1066
What dies Ayer agree that
a statement is only meaningful if analytical or synthetic
what are the two ways a statement can be verified e.g.
in practice, or in principle
e.g. there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy
this can be verified empirically, it just hasn’t been yet
two categories of verification for Ayer
strong verification - can be proved instantly
weak verification - associated verified empirical statements can confirm
what is God talk for Ayer? (4)
unverifiable both in practice and principle, strongly and weakly
no empirical observations that can show religious propositions to be true or false
‘God’ corresponds with nothing in the real world
‘not an intelligible motion at all’
what is the boo-hurrah theory
Ayer
Moral utterances do not have truth value
express the feelings of the speaker, with nothing to back it up
in the same way God-talk is unverifiable, so are moral statements
Hick’s argument against the verification principle
God talk is eschalogically verifiable
3 strengths of verification principle
in line with science, demands we look at the world empirically
demands justification for religious claims
logical to say it is impossible to prove God’s existence
wards argument against the verification principle
God can verify his own existence
argument against the verification principle to do with Swinburne
statements can be meaningful/understood without being verified
e.g. toys come alive in cupboard at night
criticism: what does the VP only do
only questions a statement’s meaningfulness, not truth
criticisms of VP to do with science and morality
VP has narrow demands, which rules out moral statements
lots of science cannot be directly observed, science does not work exclusively through verification
what is not irrational - as a criticism of VP
the universe either created itself/was done by an external mind
we have creative minds, could be a supremely creative one
what does ayer say moral prepositions are and what is a flaw of this
emotional ejaculations
dismisses what’s important about human thinking: art, music, poetry
weak verification loophole as a criticism of VP
if weak verification principle allows historical statements to be verifiable, should allow religious statements to be
e.g. Jesus’ resurrection weakly verified from documentary evidence from New Testament
most fundamental flaw of verification principle
the verification principle itself is not verifiable in principle by its own criteria
what did Karl popper distinguish between
science - einstein, predicts future, falsifiable, confirms
pseudo science - freud, manipulated evidence to fit findings, must at least be possible to disprove
who came up with the falsification principle
karl popper
popper quote about the falsification principle
in so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality
what did Anthony few come up with
the parable of the invisible gardener
what is the basis of the parable of the invisible gardener
believers/christians won’t let anything falsify their beliefs, they manipulate their evidence (pseudo science)
believer has to keep changing and adding to their definition of the gardener in order for him to exist
what is Flew’s argument
statements are only meaningful if they are cognitive/factual,
only can be if there’s a situation that would be falsify them
if they can’t be falsified, they don’t relate to the world at all
2 weaknesses of the falsification principle
many areas of human experience that are non-falsifiable, yet meaningful, e.g. personal opinions
universal statements can be unfalsifiable and meaningful, e.g ‘all events are caused’
what is a realist view
religious claims are meaningful because they are factual and can be proved true like any other claim
what is an anti realist view
religious claims are not factual, still meaningful, some is stating what they believe influenced by where they live
e.g. Hare
what does hare create as response to the falsification principle
Bliks
what is hare’s stance on language
non-cognitive and anti-realist
what is a blip
result of childhood influences
e.g. growing up in a Christian household creates a Christian blik
filter through which we measure further information and assimilate other view points
e.g. many Christians accept God created the universe through Big Bang, matching scientific evidence to suit religious blik
what is religious language for hare (4)
non-verifiable
non-falsifiable
non-cognitive
but deeply meaningful Bliks
what parable does hare come up with
the parable of the lunatic
what is the parable of the lunatic
lunatic at Oxford thinks the dons want to murder him, which is an unfalsifiable blik
people are kind, which causes lunatic to think they’re being cunning
opposite of flew’s gardener analogy: lunatic=atheist
what does Hare think about Flew’s take on religious language
flew thinks religious language is meaningless
Hare thinks he has mistaken the nature of religious language, it is not necessarily factual but deeply meaningful
