Verification

Question 1

A01

Answer 1

-For language to be meaningful it has to be cognitive

-religious language doesn’t meet the criteria of verification, non-empirical by nature, cannot be observed or tested, not analytic thus we cannot accept it as factual or true.

Question 2

Strength-Scientific

Answer 2

+Scientific and objective, strong criteria for meaning, undermines religious language as we cannot establish something is factual unless it can be verified
C: Flawed criteria of meaning-theologians have arguably overcome the criticism and suggest religious language still has meaning
-Link to religious moral statements and NML

Question 3

Limitation-Beauty, art

Answer 3

-Weak criteria of meaning as it suggests non cognitive concepts like beauty, art and music are ‘meaningless’ as they cannot be verified but they would be considered meaningful to many people, ethical statements seem to have meaning, it could be argued there are some concepts which exist like beauty, morality which cannot be verified but are meaningful-weak criteria of meaning.

Question 4

eschatological verification

Answer 4

-Hick-Religious language can be eschatologically verified after death, in the afterlife we find out if heaven, hell etc is true or false thus is verifiable
-Cannot be verified in this lifetime cognitively, only in a ‘non empirical world’, also the idea that religious language will be eschatologically verified at all isn’t a verifiable assertion thus is meaningless.-doesn’t fully undermine.

Question 5

Laws of science

Answer 5

-Assumes laws of science are unverifiable-weak criteria-just because something cannot be verified doesn’t mean it isn’t cognitively meaningful-e.g ‘gravity always makes things fall’ cannot be verified but is meaningful and true, it cannot be observed but is factual, weak criteria of meaning