religious language

Question 1

define cognitive views on religious language

Answer 1

-aim to literally describe how the world is
-are true or false

Question 2

how would cognitivism defend religious language is meaningful

Answer 2

p1-scentences are meaningful if they are statements
p2-expressions of belief about the world are either true or false
p3-‘god exists’ is the claim that god exists independently in the world, reasons can be given to support this (Hick)
c-therefore ‘god exists’ is meaningful

Question 3

what arguments assume a cognitive view of religious language

Answer 3

-ontological
-cosmological
-teleological
-problem of evil

Question 4

define non-cognitive views of religious language

Answer 4

-do not aim to literally describe how the world is
-are neither true or false

Question 5

how would non-cognitivism argue religious language is meaningful

Answer 5

p1-scentences are meaningful if they expressions of mental e.g. emotion
p2-expressions of these non-cognitive mental states are not falsifiable
p3-‘god exists’/’god is good’ are not claims but expressions of non-cognitive mental states
c-therefore ‘god exists’ is meaningful

Question 6

what argues religious language is meaningless

Answer 6

-verification principle
-falsifiability
-invisible gardener

Question 7

who comes up with verification principle

Answer 7

-A.J. Ayer

Question 8

what does A.J. Ayer argue about religious language

Answer 8

religious language is meaningless because it fails the verification principle

Question 9

define the verification principle

Answer 9

a statement only has meaning if it is either:
-an analytic truth e.g. a triangle has 3 sides
-or empirically verifiable e.g. water boils at 100c

Question 10

how does the verification principle apply to religious language

Answer 10

-Ayer argues ‘god exists’ is not an analytic truth because ontological arguments fail to prove gods existence from definition of god
-Ayer argues religious statements are not empirically verifiable because there is no test to prove or disprove gods existence (unfalsifiable)

Question 11

what does Ayers verification principle conclude about religious language

Answer 11

‘god exists’ is meaningless because it is neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable

Question 12

what’s a response to the verification principle

Answer 12

-it fails at it’s own test
-Ayers claim ‘a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable’ is neither analytic or empirically verifiable
-concludes the verification principle is meaningless

Question 13

how would Ayer respond to the verification principle being meaningless

Answer 13

its only meant as a definition of meaning not an empirical hypothesis of meaning

Question 14

define falsifiable statements

Answer 14

there must be some possible observation to prove a statement true or false
-meaningful

Question 15

what’s an example of a falsifiable statement

Answer 15

water boils at 100c

Question 16

define unfalsifiable statements

Answer 16

-there is no possible observation to disprove a statement
-meaningless

Question 17

what’s an example of an unfalsifiable statement

Answer 17

everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds

Question 18

who argues religious language is unfalsifiable and thus meaningless

Answer 18

Flew

Question 19

what is Flew’s argument

Answer 19

-invisible gardener

Question 20

what is the invisible gardener argument

Answer 20

p1-A and B find a random bit of jungle with both flowers and weeds
p2-A says a gardener maintains this bit of jungle, but B disagrees
p3-they keep watch for a gardener, but don’t see one
p4-so they set up other methods (fences, guard dogs) to detect gardener
p5-these methods fail to detect gardener
p6-A says this is because the gardener makes no sound, no smell and is intangible
p7-each time fails to detect gardener, A comes up with an explanation to maintain his claim that there is a gardener

Question 21

what does A claim about the gardener

Answer 21

-claims the gardener is unfalsifiable because there is no possible empirical test that could disprove it
-means there is no way to prove it either making it unfalsifiable and so meaningless

Question 22

how do the aspects of the jungle analogy represent god

Answer 22

-invisible gardener represents god
-flowers and weeds represent good and evil
-jungle clearing represents the world

Question 23

how does Flew’s jungle analogy apply to god

Answer 23

-‘god exists’ is meaningless
-we cant hear, see or feel god just as we cant hear, see or feel the gardener
-if there was a gardener we would see his work e.g. removing weeds
-if god existed you would expect him to remove evil

Question 24

what does flew’s jungle analogy conclude

Answer 24

‘god exists’ is meaningless just as A’s theory of the invisible gardener

Question 25

who came up with eschatological verification

Answer 25

Hick

Question 26

define eschatological verification

Answer 26

a statement that can be verified after death, or at the end of time

Question 27

how does eschatological verification apply to god

Answer 27

-even if it's not empirically possible to prove gods existence in this life, it is still possible to prove it in the after life

Question 28

what's an example of eschatological verification

Answer 28

-if a person dies they are resurrected and have an unambiguous experience of meeting and speaking with god -serves as verification 'god exists' is both meaningful and true

Question 29

what happens if there is no after life (eschatological verification)

Answer 29

-cannot disprove/prove that god exists as such experiences would be impossible -if no afterlife and no empirical evidence in this life to prove god exists/doesn't exist, Ayer and Flew are correct to say god is unfalsifiable

Question 30

what does Hicks eschatological verification conclude

Answer 30

shows 'god exists' is verifiable and meaningful if true, but unfalsifiable and meaningless if false

Question 31

who came up with the resistance fighter argument

Answer 31

Basil Mitchell

Question 32

what does the resistance fighter argument argue

Answer 32

-in order for a statement/belief to be meaningful it must be falsifiable -just because there are some observations to counter a belief doesn't mean we have to withdraw from that belief.

Question 33

what's an example of the resistant fighter argument

Answer 33

p1-you are in a war, your country has been occupied by an enemy p2-you meet a stranger who claims to be leader of the resistance p3-you trust this man p4-the stranger acts ambiguously, doing things to support enemy instead of your side p5-you continue to believe this stranger is on your side and trust he has good reasons for his actions

Question 34

how does the war example apply to god (resistance fighter)

Answer 34

-stranger represents god -his actions represent evil

Question 35

what does the resistance fighter conclude

Answer 35

-we can accept that the existence of evil counts as evidence against the statement 'god exists' so it is falsifiable therefore meaningful

Question 36

define provisional hypothesis

Answer 36

abandoned as soon as the evidence goes against it

Question 37

define significant article of faith

Answer 37

accepts conflicting evidence but maintains belief and seeks explanation of it

Question 38

define vacuous formulae

Answer 38

no evidence counts against it, completely unfalsifiable

Question 39

what does Mitchell argue about provisional hypothesis (resistance fighter)

Answer 39

religious beliefs are not provisional hypothesis like scientific statements

Question 40

what does Mitchell argue about vacuous formulae (resistance fighter)

Answer 40

religious beliefs are not vacuous formulae

Question 41

what does Mitchell argue about significant article of faith (resistance fighter)

Answer 41

religious beliefs are significant articles of faith

Question 42

what is Mitchell's overall argument (resistance fighter)

Answer 42

p1-we can accept the existence of evil as evidence against gods existence p2-and so god exists is falsifiable p3-and so god exists is meaningful p4-the religious believer can accept there are evidence against the statement 'god exists' without withdrawing belief that the statement is true

Question 43

what does Hare argue

Answer 43

-religious statements are not things that can just be shown to be true or false -they are part of someone's belief about the world -calls these beliefs bliks

Question 44

what's an example of bliks

Answer 44

-a student thinks his uni professor is trying to kill him -you take him to speak to a lecturer and the lecturer acts normal -the student states that the uni professor was just pretending to be normal -no amount of evidence will concince the student that his blik is false

Question 45

how does the uni example apply to god (hare's blicks)

Answer 45

-bliks are meaningful to the person who holds them, despite being unfalsifiable -god exists would be unfalsifiable to certain people but it still means something to them and affects their behaviour

Question 46

what does hare's blik argument conclude

Answer 46

blik's are unfalsifiable but still meaningful to the person who holds it

Question 47

is religious language meaningful (25 mark plan)

Answer 47

p1-intro -religious language is cognitive and meaningful define key terms p2-argument 1 -verification principle (ayer) p3-response 1 -verification principle is self defeating p4-argument 2 -invisible gardener (flew) p5-response 2 -eschatological verification (hick) p6-argument 3 -resistance fighter (Mitchell) p7-response 3 -bliks (hare) p8-conclusion -religious language is verifiable, falsifiable and meaningful