Verification and Meaning - Religious Language (1)

Question 1

What was the view of the Vienna Circle on religious language?

Answer 1

• Radical approach to religious language of logical positivism
• Deemed it as meaningless

Question 2

What is Logical Positivism and who was it developed by?

Answer 2

• Approach which deemed metaphysics as meaningless
• Task of the philosopher was to differentiate the meaningful from the meaningless through the logical analysis of sentences

Question 3

What did A.J. Ayers book ‘Language Truth and Logic’ (1936) do for many?

Answer 3

• It rendered many influential branches, e.g philosophy of religion, ethics and metaphysics as irrelevant and meaningless

Question 4

What was Hegelianism Philosophy?

Answer 4

• View of G,W.F Hegel
• Argued reality is one and the universe forms part of the spiritual reality he calls the absolute

Question 5

How did Hegelianism provide an optimistic view of the world?

Answer 5

• ‘Philosophy of History’ he argued the history of the world is the progress of consciousness and freedom
• He said the world is in a continual state of improvement and progression
• Widely accepted as the world developed

Question 6

How did G.W.F Hegel emphasise his point in his ‘The Outline of History’ ?

Answer 6

• Presented the view of history as the continual and inevitable ascent
• We are moving away from primeval darkness moving towards a future of enlightenment and joy

Question 7

What caused the rejection of Hegelianism Philosophy?

Answer 7

• During WW1 millions were killed by artillery, gas and bombs
• Only progress was the mass production of weapons and heavy industry to kill millions
• Optimist outlook was tarnished and hurt religious language, no future of enlightenment and joy

Question 8

How does Josiah Royce emphasise the downfall of Hegelianism?

Answer 8

• An Idealist Philosopher who is shattered by the torpedoing of Lusitania
• He saw it as a disproof of everything he believed in

Question 9

What is the Philosophers Task according to Verification Principle and Logical Positivism?

Answer 9

• To analyse logical structures of a sentence and figure out whether it is meaningful
• A sentence that has ‘sense’ are ones that allow scientific enquiry and those that are ‘nonsense’ do not allow investigation or verification

Question 10

Give examples of sentences that are ‘sense’ and ‘nonsense’?

Answer 10

• Sentences that are ‘sense’ allow for scientific enquiry, e.g ‘Fiat produces the fastest cars in the world’
• ‘Nonsense’ contains ethics, theology, religion as they are not verifiable positions

Question 11

What are tautologies and why do Logical Positivists believe they are one of the only truths?

Answer 11

• Tautologies are considered a priori and true by definition
• ‘A triangle has three sides’, the meaning of ‘triangle’ is to have three sides, giving us a definition by truth
• By extension this becomes a philosophical Fact, as it can be observed in a scientific way that a triangle has three sides

Question 12

What example does A.J. Ayer and other Logical Positivists use of tautologies?

Answer 12

• The whole of mathematics
• Any sum of maths is reducible to a simple tautology, it is true by the definition of numbers, e.g x always equals x
• When saying 2+3=5 it is the same as saying 3+2=5, they are a priori and true by definition

Question 13

What is an Empirically Verifiable Proposition for Logical Positivists?

Answer 13

• Any sentences who’s truth can be determined by observation, moving beyond the literal meaning of terms
• E.g to say ‘Fiat makes the fastest cars in the world’, it is meaningful as it is can be verified

Question 14

What is a proposition that is not Empirically Verifiable for Logical Positivists?

Answer 14

• Anything that cannot be verified is meaningless
• To say everything in the universe doubles in size overnight may be meaningful at face value
• But once you realise it cannot be empirically tested it shows that they are meaningless

Question 15

Define Verification Principle?

Answer 15

A sentence is meaningful if and only it is a tautology and verifiable by sense experience

Question 16

What is the Strong Verification Principle (Quote)

Answer 16

Requires conclusive empirical evidence
- “conclusively established”

Question 17

Does A.J. Ayer accept the Strong Verification Principle?

Answer 17

• Points out that the verification principle is impossible, and we can never make any conclusive statements about the world
• Even our senses can be mistaken, e.g your cat could be your neighbours

Question 18

What is the Weak Verification Principle (Quote)

Answer 18

The weak principle states one must be able to state what empirical evidence would make a sentence probable
“experience to render it probable”

Question 19

Does A.J. Ayer accept the Weak Verification Principle? Give an example he uses.

Answer 19

• He accepts this, ex of 1936 where he says there are mountains on the other side of the moon
• This is meaningful because we knew observation could render it possible
• Luna 3 showed us that the other side of the mountain does indeed have mountains, and the original statement itself is meaningful

Question 20

How does Ayer’s Verification Principle affect religious language? (Quote)

Answer 20

“There exists a transcendent God… no literal significance” - Language Truth and Logic
- He is not contemplating whether God exists or not, he is simply asserting it is nonsense and meaningless, it can’t be verified
- To say ‘flobydoodoodada’ and to say ‘not flobydoodoodada’ are both nonsensical and can’t be verified, neither can God
- Dawkins treats God as a failed scientific hypothesis whereas Ayer simply says it is not worth considering

Question 21

What error does Vincent Brümmer believe Verification Theory has made?

Answer 21

• Believes that the attempt to analyse religious sentences in a scientific analysis will obviously provide no meaning
• It is like trying to apply science to Shakespeare
• Treating religious terms in the way enlightenment thinkers, such as Ayer and Dawkins do is a grave misinterpretation

Question 22

Quote Vincent Brümmer on his view of verification theory?

Answer 22

“the way religious faith is understood has been disastrous”
- The assumption that if it cannot be understood through a scientific lens it is meaningless is wrong

Question 23

How does Vincent Brümmer argue that in the rejection of metaphysics logical positivists have created their own metaphysics?

Answer 23

• They reject conventional metaphysics
• They have created their own metaphysics, one where there is a metaphysical assumption everything is known to science and not to God

Question 24

What is the view Dorothy Emmet provides of logical positivism?

Answer 24

Reinforces that it is an enlightenment thinker error to treat natural theologies claims as univocal and scientific proposition

Question 25

How does Dorothy Emmet believe religious language should be understood? (Quote)

Answer 25

“We can only say so much”
- She believes that religious language is analogical in nature
- To call the universe an organism is not true, but can help one understand ecosystems
- The same way religious language is an attempt to express and understand, not uncover a bunch of facts

Question 26

Where does Dorothy Emmet believe metaphysical confusion of the logical positivist stems from?

Answer 26

• If someone who is in great pain says ‘Im literally dying’, it does not mean they are dying , it is metaphorical and a way of speaking
• The same way you cannot over-analyse religious prayers, hymns and phrases in the same way

Question 27

What is Richard Swineburne’s solution to the logical positivist problem and where does he lay this out?

Answer 27

• In ‘The Coherence of Theism’
• Swineburne argues that there are sentences which obviously have meaning but are unverifiable

Question 28

Quote Swinburne and outline the example he uses to illustrate his point.

Answer 28

“toys… come out of their boxes and dance”
- He uses the example of Toy Story to show there are significant sentences which can fall out of logical positivist demand
- They are verifiable, but also cannot be verified

Question 29

Does Swineburne’s solution satisfy the Weak Verification Principle?

Answer 29

• It fails to satisfy the weak verification principle, there is no ability to verify such a statement
• It is therefore not meaningful in terms of the verification principle
• Swineburne appeals to our ability to understand the sentence to make it meaningful whereas Ayer is rendering it meaningless due to its inability to be tested

Question 30

Why is Swineburne’s example used not applicable to God?

Answer 30

• Knowing a sentence about toys is not to be understood in the same way as God is
• We undestand the nature of a toy, the function and make up but not the same for God
• We do not know God or his exact function within the world

Question 31

How does D.Z. Phillips’ outlook refute Swineburne’s example?

Answer 31

• He argues we do not define the search for God in the same way as a cure for cancer (for example)
• We can tell you the clinical results of finding cancer and the exact process but this is not the same as God
• We can not treat God in a logical positivist way, scientifically, it is a religious quest
• The same way we cannot jump from Swineburne’s statement about toys to assuming the meaningfulness of the statement of God

Question 32

How can it be argued that Logical Positivists have made language binary with only the options of meaningful and meaningless?

Answer 32

• It does not consider that the ability to respond is something worth considering
• To say flabydoodoodada is obviously nonsense as it entails no response, but to say ‘I believe in God’ entails a response, e.g debate
• There are significant things to be said, but the mere binary use of meaningful and meaningless has reduced the complexity of speech and its richness through the ability of response

Question 33

How does Logical Positivism suffer from the verification principle not being a tautology?

Answer 33

• If the verification principle itself is not a tautology or itself empirically verifiable then why is it the principle we follow?
• To argue it is its own methodological class of language goes against logical positivists own intentions and undermines that tautologies and empirically verifiable positions are the only thing verifiable

Question 34

How can logical positivists be accused of foundationalism?

Answer 34

• This is the belief that all knowledge is based on some unarguable self evident truth
• They believe the verification is this truth
• There is nothing to justify the claim, and this leads to us not being able to ‘know’ anything

Question 35

How does Logical positivism assume that science is the supreme principle?

Answer 35

• Assume those statements that are proposed and verified on a scientific basis should be accepted
• This would reduce all knowledge to one type
• Poetry and philosophy would have no place, they reveal a different kind of meaning, how to live life, e.g stoicism
• This is the same for religious language