Religious language

Question 1

what does religious lang topic explore

Answer 1

debate is about whether such religious language is meaningful or whether it is meaningless.

Question 2

definition of a cognitive statements

+an example

Answer 2

• Aim to literally describe how the world is
• are true or false
  e.g Water boils at 100°c”
  “Triangles have 3 sides”

Question 3

definition of a non-cognitive statemnet

+example

Answer 3

• Do not aim to literally describe how the world is
• aren’t true or false
  e.g “dont do that!”

Question 4

what is AYER’s theory

Answer 4

the verification principle

Question 5

what is the verification principle

Answer 5

a statement only has meaning of its either an analytic truth or empirically verfiable

Question 6

apply the verification principle

Answer 6

Applying the verification principle to religious language, Ayer argues that statements like “God answers my prayers” and “God exists” are not analytic truths. Further, they are not empirically verifiable or falsifiable (see below).

Therefore, according to Ayer’s verificationism, religious language is meaningless.

Question 7

problemns for the verification principle

Answer 7

1. self-defeating

Question 8

self-defeating prob. for verification principle

Answer 8

Ayer’s claim that “a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable” is itself neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable! Therefore, according to its own criteria, the verification principle is meaningless.

Question 9

what is a falsifiable statement

Answer 9

• Falsifiable statements are meaningful and capable of being true or false
• inconsistent with some possible observation - that has to be some possible evidence againsit the statement
  **The statement “water boils at 100°c” is falsifiable because it could be proven wrong by some possible observation. **

Question 10

what is Flew’s theory

Answer 10

falsification principle
* the invisible gardener

Question 11

what is the invisible gardener

Answer 11

1. Two explorers find a clearing in a jungle. Both weeds and flowers grow here.
2. Explorer A says the clearing is the work of a gardener. Explorer B disagrees.
3. To settle the argument, they keep watch for the gardener.
4. After a few days, they haven’t seen him, but Explorer A says it’s because the gardener is invisible
5. So, they set up an electric fence and guard dogs to catch the gardener instead
6. But, after a few more days, they still haven’t detected him
7. Explorer A then says that not only is the gardener invisible, he’s also intangible, makes no sound, has no smell, etc.
8. Explorer B: What is the difference between this claim and the claim that the gardener doesn’t even exist?
9. In other words, Explorer A’s theory is unfalsifiable – nothing could possibly prove this theory wrong, but nothing could prove it correct either.
10. Because it is unfalsifiable, Explorer A’s theory is meaningless.

Question 12

apply the invisible gardener to ‘god exists’

Answer 12

So, Flew is arguing that “God exists” is meaningless because it is unfalsifiable in the same way the existence of the invisible gardener is unfalsifiable. We can’t even use the problem of evil as evidence against God’s existence because the religious believer just creates reasons (e.g. free will, soul-making) why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil.

Flew argues that because the religious believer accepts no observations count as evidence against belief in God, the religious believer’s hypothesis is unfalsifiable and meaningless.

Question 13

arguements for ‘religious lang is meaningful’

these are essentially responses to both Flew and Ayer

Answer 13

1. Hick’s eschatological verification
2. Mitchell’s resistance fighter
3. Hare’s Bliks

Question 14

what is the eschatological verification

Answer 14

A statement that can be verified after death, or at the end of time.
* Hick agrees that “God exists” is not empirically verifiable in this life. However, Hick argues that many religious claims are about things beyond the limits of human life. And, he argues, such religious claims are falsifiable because it is possible to verify them after we die. For example, many theists believe in a life after death during which they will meet or otherwise experience God

Question 15

what is the resistance fighter arg

Answer 15

Mitchell agrees that in *order for a statement or belief to be meaningful *it must be possible for some observation to count against it (i.e. it must be falsifiable in order to be meaningful).
**
But, Mitchell argues, just because there are some observations that count against a certain belief, that doesn’t automatically mean we have to reject that belief. Mitchell gives the following example to illustrate this:

1. you are in a war, your country has been occupied by an enemy
2. You meet a stranger who claims to be leader of the resistance
3. You trust this man
4. But the stranger acts ambiguously, sometimes doing things that appear to support the enemy rather than your own side
5. Yet you continue to believe the stranger is on your side despite this and trust that he has good reasons for these ambiguous actions

Question 16

apply the resistance fighter to religious lang being meaningful

Answer 16

n this analogy, the stranger represents God and his ambiguous actions represent the problem of evil.
* argues that religious beliefs are not ‘provisional hypotheses’ But nor are they ‘vacuous formulae’
* They are ‘significant articles of faith’
* So, Mitchell is arguing that we can accept that the existence of evil counts as evidence against God’s existence (and so “God exists” is falsifiable and meaningful) without withdrawing belief in God.

Question 17

what is a provisional hypothesis + example

Answer 17

Belief is abandoned as soon as the balance of evidence counts against it (e.g. a scientific hypothesis once it is disproved by evidence)

Question 18

what is a significant article of faith

Answer 18

Accepts some conflicting evidence against the belief but seeks an explanation of this conflicting evidence (this is what religious belief is).

Question 19

what is a vacuous formulae

Answer 19

Irrationally maintained in the face of any and all conflicting evidence. No amount of evidence is enough to disprove it (so completely unfalsifiable)

Question 20

what is Hare’s opinion on religious statements

Answer 20

According to Hare, religious statements are not things that can just be shown to be true or false. Instead, they are basic fundamental beliefs that are not empirically testable – Hare calls these attitudes ‘bliks’.

Question 21

descibe a blik

Answer 21

** example of a paranoid student who thinks university lecturers are trying to kill him.
You assure this student that university lecturers are not trying to kill him and provide tons of evidence, yet the student still believes it anyway
So, no amount of evidence/reassurance will convince the student that his blik is false. In other words, their blik is unfalsifiable.

Question 22

are bliks meaningful or meaningless?

Answer 22

despite being unfalsifiable, Hare argues that bliks are still meaningful to the person who holds them. In the case of the university lecturers example, the blik clearly means something to the paranoid person because it has an effect on his behaviour: He won’t go to lectures, and will look over his shoulder to check university lecturers aren’t following him, for example.

Question 23

applt bliks to ‘god exists’

Answer 23

Hare argues that religious language is the same: “God exists” may be unfalsifiable to people who have this blik, but it clearly means something to them. For example, people who believe “God exists” might pray or go to Church – it means enough to them that it affects their behaviour.

In other words, a blik is unfalsifiable but still meaningful to the person who holds it.