The verification principle - LG2 Flashcards
INTRO - define
VP - the only statements that are meaningful are those that can be empirically verified or are analytical (true by definition)
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
Scientific and allows us to be able to know what is meaningful/ meaningless
Fails its own test and things that are meaningful such as poetry and art cannot be verified
Section one - theme
The verification principle
Section one - AO1
VP
Logical positivists: a philosophical movement aimed at rejecting non-empirical language as meaningless
VP: Ayer: Something cannot be held to be true unless it has been scientifically or empirically verified.
Every statement must either be tautological (analytic – verifiable by definition as both the subject and the predicate mean the same thing ‘ all unmarried men are bachelors’) or empirical (synthetic- subject is verified by the senses and observation). If it is neither it is metaphysical and is rendered senseless. God cannot be verified analytically or synthetically as we know nothing about God and thus statements about God being neither analytical or synthetic are meaningless.
Section one - AO2 FOR
VP
Supporters: Locke and Schlik argued that truth and knowledge can only be found through what we can see and experience using our senses.
VP is a theory not a statement but is a theory and thus does need to pass this test.
Section one - AO2 AGAINST
VP
Circular argument as verification principle cannot even verify itself as it is neither tautological or verifiable
underlying assumptions, such as that scientists alone can give information on the world. we gain insights from art and poetry, but they are not verifiable. log pos’ idea of only two language categories rules out valuable contributions to human knowledge.
Idea of VP not needing to be verified seems a cop-out argument about how it is a contradiction of its own logic
Section 2: Theme
Strong/ weak Verification
Section 2: AO1
STRONG/WEAK VP
All of history would be rendered meaningless as we have no way of conclusively verifying historical sources. For example, there is no way of proving that Julius Caesar came to Britain, but it seems absurd to class this as meaningless
Section 2: AO2 FOR
STRONG/WEAK VP
Ayer makes distinction between weak/strong verification.
Strong V: When there is no doubt that the statement is true.
Weak V: There is some observation relevant to proving assertion is true/false and thus if verifiable in principle this is sufficient evidence to verify it
Anne Boleyn being beheaded due to the sources is verifiable in principle and hence meaningful whereas statements such as ‘God is creator’ we have no evidence to verify as true/false and thus meaningless
Misses Ayer’s point: Different levels of verification: Analytic, science, history, emotion, religion truths
Emotion and religious truths are subjective which makes them less reliable and less meaningful
Hick’s eschatological verification could prove anything i.e., a monster eating our souls after death
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
STRONG/WEAK VP
RE – St Theresa of Avilla / Saint Catherine are evidence
Hick’s eschatological verification in the parable of the ‘Celestial city’ after death we will be able to verify God’s existence
In principle you could verify religion as if in the future the statement could be verified and meaningful then it should not be treated as meaningless in the present
Section 3: theme
Wittgenstein - Language games
Section 3: AO1
LANGUAGE GAMES
Needs something else to extend discussion to theological qualities. Language games gain meaning from its connection to social reality. A ‘Language game’ exists when multiple people communicate. ‘Game’ as each language game consists of rules – in each social situation a person will act a certain way as they have internalised and are following certain rules which govern their behaviour, including speech. Possible for people to communicate as they share an understanding of the criteria of that game. Religious people: Language games about faith, emotions, social conventions
Section 3: AO2 FOR
LANGUAGE GAMES
Culpitt: Theological non realism – God is not something that exists but simply a reality in the language game of faith – concerned with the meaning of God only in peoples lives
God is love – more concerned with the experience and having faith in God’s love rather than the objective existence of a God to give love. Faith is a stance in life and God has no objective reality.
Anti-realist non-cognitive stance – faith is communal matter and faith should be used to describe this
Section 3: AO2 AGAINST
LANGUAGE GAMES
Truth matters: In a religious community the word ‘God’ is not simply meaningful to only those in the community – non-cognitive approach means does not capture to those not participating in the language game what is meant by ‘God’
