RL 2

Question 1

what is the Vienna circle

Answer 1

a group of philosophers who were logical positivists/empiricists in the 20th century

Question 2

what did the Vienna circle conclude in regards to God

Answer 2

we cannot talk meaningfully about God

Question 3

what did the Vienna circle begin their investigation with

Answer 3

hume’s fork

Question 4

what is Hume’s fork

Answer 4

Hume argued all knowledge fell into 2 categories
matters of fact
relation between

Question 5

what did the logical positivists claim from Hume’s fork

Answer 5

there’s only 2 types of meaningful statements
analytic propositions
synthetic propositions

Question 6

what is an analytical proposition

Answer 6

true by definition, self evident

e.g. 2+2=4, all bachelors are unmarried men

Question 7

what is a synthetic proposition

Answer 7

dependent on evidence
e.g. grass is green
empirically verifiable

Question 8

examples of cognitive and non-cognitive statements,

and logical positivist’s view on the latter

Answer 8

cognitive - Kim k has brown hair

non-cognitive - I like Kim k’s hair
not-checkable, not analytic or synthetic, essentially meaning less

Question 9

what makes religious language meaningless and what’s this called

Answer 9

the Verification Principle
religious language is meaningless because:
there is no evidence to support religious claims
they’re not true by definition

Question 10

what is the basis of the verification principle

Answer 10

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

Question 11

who is Schlick

Answer 11

he is in the Vienna circle

founding father of logical positivism and the verification principle

Question 12

what was Schlik’s take on language

Answer 12

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

Question 13

what are 2 weaknesses of Schlick

Answer 13

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

Question 14

What dies Ayer agree that

Answer 14

a statement is only meaningful if analytical or synthetic

Question 15

what are the two ways a statement can be verified e.g.

Answer 15

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

Question 16

two categories of verification for Ayer

Answer 16

strong verification - can be proved instantly

weak verification - associated verified empirical statements can confirm

Question 17

what is God talk for Ayer? (4)

Answer 17

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’

Question 18

what is the boo-hurrah theory

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Hick’s argument against the verification principle

Answer 19

God talk is eschalogically verifiable

Question 20

3 strengths of verification principle

Answer 20

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

Question 21

wards argument against the verification principle

Answer 21

God can verify his own existence

Question 22

argument against the verification principle to do with Swinburne

Answer 22

statements can be meaningful/understood without being verified
e.g. toys come alive in cupboard at night

Question 23

criticism: what does the VP only do

Answer 23

only questions a statement’s meaningfulness, not truth

Question 24

criticisms of VP to do with science and morality

Answer 24

VP has narrow demands, which rules out moral statements

lots of science cannot be directly observed, science does not work exclusively through verification

Question 25

what is not irrational - as a criticism of VP

Answer 25

the universe either created itself/was done by an external mind we have creative minds, could be a supremely creative one

Question 26

what does ayer say moral prepositions are and what is a flaw of this

Answer 26

emotional ejaculations | dismisses what's important about human thinking: art, music, poetry

Question 27

weak verification loophole as a criticism of VP

Answer 27

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

Question 28

most fundamental flaw of verification principle

Answer 28

the verification principle itself is not verifiable in principle by its own criteria

Question 29

what did Karl popper distinguish between

Answer 29

science - einstein, predicts future, falsifiable, confirms pseudo science - freud, manipulated evidence to fit findings, must at least be possible to disprove

Question 30

who came up with the falsification principle

Answer 30

karl popper

Question 31

popper quote about the falsification principle

Answer 31

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

Question 32

what did Anthony few come up with

Answer 32

the parable of the invisible gardener

Question 33

what is the basis of the parable of the invisible gardener

Answer 33

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

Question 34

what is Flew's argument

Answer 34

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

Question 35

2 weaknesses of the falsification principle

Answer 35

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'

Question 36

what is a realist view

Answer 36

religious claims are meaningful because they are factual and can be proved true like any other claim

Question 37

what is an anti realist view

Answer 37

religious claims are not factual, still meaningful, some is stating what they believe influenced by where they live e.g. Hare

Question 38

what does hare create as response to the falsification principle

Answer 38

Bliks

Question 39

what is hare's stance on language

Answer 39

non-cognitive and anti-realist

Question 40

what is a blip

Answer 40

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

Question 41

what is religious language for hare (4)

Answer 41

non-verifiable non-falsifiable non-cognitive but deeply meaningful Bliks

Question 42

what parable does hare come up with

Answer 42

the parable of the lunatic

Question 43

what is the parable of the lunatic

Answer 43

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

Question 44

what does Hare think about Flew's take on religious language

Answer 44

flew thinks religious language is meaningless | Hare thinks he has mistaken the nature of religious language, it is not necessarily factual but deeply meaningful