nature of belief Flashcards
(33 cards)
In which work does Ayer outline the verification principle (VP)
Language Truth and Logic
Under Ayer’s verification principle (VP) what makes a sentence meaningful
-if it is either tautology or if it verifiable empirically
What is tautology
something which is true by definition
What was Ayer’s verification principle (VP) inspired by
Hume’s fork- stated that meaningful language was either a priori analytic or a posteriori synthetic
Give two examples of statements which would be meaningful under the VP and why
- ‘it snowed on xmas day in 2000’ as it could be verified by observations in London on that day
- ‘there is life on neptune’ although it can’t be verified right now it in principle possible to verify it
Why are all statements about God meaningless under the VP according to Ayer
you can’t verify it- statements about a transcendent being are all non-verifiable
Criticisms of the verification principle
- verification principle itself fails to be meaningful as it isn’t tautology and can’t be verified empirically
- limiting realm of speech to very specific list of statements (Sutherland)
Who came up with the falsification principle
Anthony Flew
What is the falsification principle based on
based on science- everything works probabilistically
What’s the difference between the falsification and the verification principle
Flew agreed with Ayer that propositions are only meaningful if they are factually significant
BUT its the possibility of falsification rather than verification that makes it meaningful
What statements are meaningful according to flew
Statements which are unfalsifiable (can’t be proven false)
What is the Garden Parable
two people arrive at a run down garden person x believes that a gardener is looking after it but person y believes there is no one tending it
look at the garden for several days but x holds onto belief that there is a gardener- coming to conclusion that the gardener is invisible, untangable and odourless
What does the garden parable demonstrate
not enough for a statement to be verifiable as even though there is no evidence x holds onto the view that there is a gardener- continues to modify view so it can be falsified
the fact that it is unfalsifiable is what makes it meaningless- same principle can be used for God and religious belief
How do theists qualify the suffering God puts us through even though ‘God loves us like a father loves his children’
say that God’s love is mysterious
Why is religious belief therefore meaningless to Flew under FP
if theists eventually believe suffering proves God doesn’t love us then also have to give up belief as no loving God exists and if they don’t its unfalsifiable to meaningless anyway
Parable of resistance leader (Mitchell)
see leader whom we trust doing things that appear to be in collaboration with the enemy- causes followers to question faith in leader
some people are going to give up belief in leader and some people won’t
What does the parable of the resistance leader show
Flew is wrong to think that people blindly cling onto beliefs and don’t question it- people do question and wrestle with faith and many people do in fact give up the belief
religious people have faith despite the serious doubts they have
Who came up with term ‘bliks’ and in which book
R.M Hare- ‘Theology and Falsification: A Symposium’
What are bliks
unfalsifiable but meaningful ideas and statements
Which parable does Hare use to illustrate bliks
Parable of the paranoid student
How does Hare undermine Flew’s falsification principle using bliks and parable of paranoid student
shows that things that are unfalsifiable can also be meaningful
it has a profound impact on how the student approaches the world- how he forms other beliefs and how he lives his life (operates so centrally in his belief system that it can’t be falsified)
We all have fundamental beliefs on which we base our actions on and which we will never give up
In which book does Clifford discuss Evidentialism
‘Ethics and Beliefs’
What does Clifford say about meaningful statements
we have a moral obligation to believe that or which we have sufficient evidence even for the most trivial of matters- tolerating beliefs without evidence will damage society
According to Clifford when are we entitled to believe something without evidence
iff it is self-evident e.g turning up to a party and announcing 'I'm here' incorrigible e.g pain inleg based on sense data
