R.L: Twentieth Century Perspectives Flashcards
“The verification principle is too flawed” Paragraph
P1:
A: The Vienna circles verification principle is too rigid as would rule out historical events. They would be meaningless
CA: A.J Ayer created strong and weak verification. Mountains on the far side of moon. verifiable in theory
E: Swinburne - a lot of religious historical events are verifiable. Since the aim for the VP was to make religious statements meaningless it is flawed.
“Is religious language meaningless” paragraph
A: not meaningless as eschatological verification - Hick and the celestial city
CA: Ayer would disagree: cannot be sure there is a celestial road. We don’t know how to verify God like we know how to verify mountains on the moon
E: Weak verification would mean that observations could make statements about God.
“Wittgenstein’s theory of language games is too unclear to be useful” essay plan
P1
A: Unclear whether cog or non-cog. Makes it challenging to understand the nature of meaning and knowledge in language games. No criteria on how to identify boundaries
CA: It is non-cognitive. Cupitt - what matters is the concept hat God expresses. It is a reality within a community of faith
E: Unclear as this would undermine the beliefs of religious people. They believe that for them God is an objective truth
A: How can we choose between language games. Religious believers and scientists often want to engage in discussion. Cannot have discourse if they are simply two games. MacIntyre, lack of a shared set of principles make it hard to justify paying attention to one over the other
CA: Wittgenstein, overlap, like a ven diagram. They can have meaningful conversation.
E: Peter Geach: circularity, where do we find the meaning o the word if it comes from the language game and the, meaning of a language game comes from the words. Hilary Putman - lack of external can lead to a form of revelations. Meaning becomes dependent on the rules
Karl Poppers falsification principle
Karl Popper: made the falsification principle to describe scientific and non-scientific statements. Did not really mention religious language
The falsification symposium
Flew: Two explorers in a jungle. Come across a clearing. One thinks its God, one doesn’t. Can qualify religious language into non-existence. “Died the death of one thousand qualifications” - cannot be falsified, meaningless, non-cognitive
Hare: deluded student. Believes that his professors are out to get him. A Blik. Bliss cannot be falsified as they have a urge impact on the lives of the believers. Non-falsifiable but meaningful, non-cognitive
Mitchell: the partisan.Beliefs are being falsified all the time. You would be delusional to not acknowledge the fact that it is always being falsified. Based on faith. Cognitive, and meaningful
Cognitive approaches to religious language make more sense:
Yes:
Aquinas - analogy of attribution and proportion. Claims that assert the reality of God
Logical positivists - A.J Ayer. They believe that it is the job of philosophers to discus whether it is meaningful and worth discussing. V.P is cognitive and treats r.l as scientific assertions.
Flew: we can falsify religious beliefs. Believers make statements that sound like genuine scientific claims.
No:
Language games, Cupitt - religious language is not objectively true outside of a language game/
Against verificationism: should not treat language in the same way as scientific claims. R.L is like poetry and music. It is beyond scientific criteria. Brummer& Emmet
Against using the falsification principle: Hare’s blocks support a non-cog view. Important and has a large impact on their life.
Verification principle scholars
- A.J. Ayer: Influenced by the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle. Created the amendment to the verifcation principle. “There are mountains on the far side of the moon” - would be impossible to verify but Ayer said that it could be verified in principle. Under weak verification scientific and historical statements are not meaningless because they can be verified in principle. Statements about God cannot be verified in principle. Later Ayer rejected the weak verification principle - eschatological verification
- Logical positivist: believed the task of the philosopher was the logical analysis of sentences, separating the meaningful and meaningless. For something to be meaningful it must be synthetically or analytically verifiable.
- Hick: argued that God can be verified in the afterlife: eschatological verification - The celestial city analogy.
- Swinburne: Analogy - toys come alive at night but return to the cupboard before anyone can see them. Suggests statements are not meaningless just because they cannot be. But ‘God’ is unknown whereas we understand toys and cupboard
- Brummer & D.Z Phillips: believe that sentences of faith or poetry and literature should not be treated in the same way as scientific statements the verification principe is too narrow
- Keith Ward: Due to A.J Ayer’s expansion of the weak and strong verification principles. Makes all statements allowable. Some religious statements are allowable e.g. Christ rose from the dead - Weak verification
- Brian McGee: People began to realise that this new glittering scalpel was, in one operation after another, killing the patient.”
Wittgenstein’s language games scholars
- Wittgenstein: language is in a similar way to games. E.g. ‘God is love’ is meaningful for those within the Christian game but not in the atheist game. Those outside a language game cannot criticise it. One game cannot be better than another game as are parallel. For logical positivism ‘game’ religious statements are meaningless. But for the theist game religious statements are meaningful
- Cupitt: all language is non-cognitive - the meaning depends on the forms of life in which they are used. God is not an objective reality. Language games do not describe reality
- D.Z Philips: disagreed with Cupitt: God was a reality beyond the scope of philosophy. He argued that language can be cognitive and non-cognitive depending on the form of life. The philosophers job is not to comment on the truth of religious statements but simply to questions and clarify their meaning
-
Peter Geach: language games is a circular argument. Word takes it meaning from the game but the game takes meaning from the word.
-Russell: Would critique language games for the lack of precision in his theory.
-Fideism: knowledge depends on faith and revelation - MacIntyre: cannot engage in discussion with people from another language game because it does not carry meaning. Cannot justify why you are in game, e.g. a Christian cannot preach
- Hillary Pullman: must be an objective reality outside the language game.
