Religious Language Flashcards
what is cognitivism and what would a cognitivist say about religious language
language expresses beliefs which are truth apt, they aim to describe the world and therefore have the possibility of being true or false
religious language aims to describe the world, there exist entities described by religious language, religious language can therefore be true or false depending on how accurately they describe these entities
what is non-cognitivism and what would it say about religious language
language does not express beliefs and so is not truth apt, it does not aim to describe the world and so does not have the possibility of being true or false, instead it aims to express some other mental state such as an emotion or a command
religious language does not aim to describe the world, there does not exist entities described by religious language, it cannot therefore be true or false, it instead expresses some other mental state such as feeling, command or faith
what is Ayer’s Verification Principle
language has meaning if it is logically or empirically verifiable
logically verifiable means it is analytically true such as triangles have 3 sides
empirically verifiable means demonstrable using experience
this can be split into strong and weak verification
strong verification is when we can actually demonstrate something using experience
weak verification means we can describe the conditions that would be required to demonstrate it using experience
explain the objection that the verification principle is self refuting
the statement “language is only meaningful iff it is either logically or empirically verifiable” is neither logically verifiable (it is not an analytic truth) and not empirically verifiable (we cannot actually find/check it using experience)
so it fails to pass its own criteria and is meaningless
evaluation –> refute is a strong word in philosophy, it means to prove false beyond doubt
what is the parable of the Celestial City from Hick
Two people are travelling along a road. One believes they are heading towards the Celestial City, the other does not. They encounter various trials and challenges along the way. The believer interprets these as challenges to prepare for entry to the Celestial City, and so embraces them with positivity, the non-believer does not. While on the road, it is impossible to say who is correct, but when they reach the end they both know that one of their beliefs will be verified.
define eschatological verification and how it makes religious language meaningful
the claim that it is possible to establish as meaningful some religious language by a confirmatory experience at the end of time/death
Hick agrees that Ayer’s VP removes rational doubt but does not agree that religious language is impossible to verify
He thinks we will know when we die, so we can articulate the conditions required to verify the statement “God exists” so religious language is meaningful
explain an objection to Hicks eschatological verification and Hicks response
- it does not make sense to verify something that happens after death since death is the end of experience, it relies on an afterlife existing
- this is a logical contradiction, since death involves the end of experience, there can be no experience after it, so if our experience ends, we cannot verify the statement
- even if this was not the case, if our body were destroyed, we couldn’t say that we were the same person in the afterlife than we were in life
- Hick says we can be resurrected in a new body and be the same person –> almost every cell is renewed over a 7 year period
- Hick claimed our identity is determined by behavioural continuity and so as long as this remains the same, we are the same person, even if our body is different, but this does not respond to the issue that if there is no afterlife then we cannot be
Popper was a philosopher of science who saw the issues with verification, s instead proposed a theory to check how a theory could be wrong instead. He didn’t intend for it to be applied to religious claims, only scientific
What is the falsification principle with examples of falsifiable and unfalsifiable theories
A theory is scientific (meaningful) iff we can articulate the conditions that would be required to demonstrate that it is false and accept theses were they to arise. If we cannot then the theory is meaningless and is fake science. Science makes progress when claims are falsified, it never reaches a final answer but only ever a best explanation which is continually tested
Falsifiable theories –> big bang, earth orbits the sun, evolution via natural selection
Unfalsifiable –> prayer, horoscopes, communism, conspiracy theories
explain Flews account of the Parable of the Gardener
two explorers in the jungle come upon a clearing, in which is a garden. One claims that there must be a gardener to tend to this space, the other that there is no gardener. They agree to set up tents and keep watch. No gardener is seen. But the believer insists: the gardener must be invisible. This time they set up a barbed-wire, electrified fence and patrol with some bloodhounds. If an invisible gardener entered, they would know about it. However, no one is ever detected. The believer further insists: the gardener must be invisible, intangible, and insensible to pain
(have no body). The non-believer despairs: how does this differ from an imaginary gardener? or no gardener at all?
what is the meaning of the parable of the gardener
every time the believer has a chance to admit their claims are wrong, they modify them, they are unwilling to admit that there is not a gardener, this would mean that their claim that there is a gardener is unfalsifiable
what does Flew argue about religious language
- meaningless because it is unfalsifiable
- there is no state of affairs that would force a believer to deny their claims about God
- rather than accept their claims are false, the believer qualifies their claims
outline the formal version of Flew’s argument
P1) A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified, a meaningless assertion is one which cannot be falsified
P2) An assertion that can be falsified is one which rules out some possible state of affairs, for example “God exists” may rule out unnecessary suffering
C1) Therefore, to meaningfully assert a claim, someone must be willing to withdraw it if the state of affairs it rules out was to occur
P3) Religious believes claim that “God exists”, they do not rule out any state of affairs
C2) Therefore, when religious believes claim that “God exists” they do not rule out any state of affairs
C3) Therefore, the claim that “God exists” when made by religious believers is meaningless
therefore religious language is meaningless
what is Mitchell’s account of the parable of the partisan
In a war-torn country, a member of the resistance (the partisan) to the invaders meets an impressive stranger. They spend the night talking, and the stranger confides in the partisan that they are on the side of the resistance; in fact, she is in command of it and urges the partisan to have faith in her no matter what. The partisan is completely convinced and trusts her. They never meet like that again, and when they do meet again, the stranger sometimes is seen to help the resistance, and sometimes to help the invaders. Despite this, the partisan maintains trust that the stranger is on their side. Sometimes he asks the stranger for help, and is helped, other times the request goes unanswered; he accepts that the stranger knows best. The partisan refuses to admit they could be wrong about the stranger.
- in theory the assertion is falsifiable but because of the trust put in the stranger by the partisan, he will not let the evidence against force him to change his mind and accept he is wrong
what does Mitchel claim about the meaningfulness of religious language as a result of the parable of the partisan
- he accepts that a meaningful claim must be falsifiable, but disagrees that a believer must be willing to withdraw the claim if evidence against it emerges
- he argues that the believer has faith and trust in God which means that they are committed to maintaining their belief even in the face of evidence counting against it
- religious claims therefore are still meaningful assertions, which due to the believers attitudes of faith, cannot be conclusively falsified
what is an objection to Mitchel’s parable of the partisan –> that the analogy does not work
- it does seem to demonstrate how trust can allow someone to overlook evidence in order to maintain their assertions
- however, the analogy involves a person and people aren’t like God
- we can have verifiable evidence of the strangers actions –> as good or bad, but not for God’s actions
- there is no verifiable evidence
- this only worlds if we understand evil in the evidential problem way
- if logical problem, then the believer cannot consistently believe in God and accept that there is evil in the world as well
explain Hare’s parable of the lunatic and its meaning
A lunatic student is convinced that all their university lecturers want to murder them. Their friends arrange meetings with the nicest lecturers in the hope that they can convince them that they are not actually out to kill them. The lunatic attends these meetings, but is not convinced: they say it is all an act of diabolical cunning to lull them into a trap so they can strike. They are convinced that the lecturers are plotting to murder them.
meaning –> the lunatics belief is not falsifiable, there is no state of affairs that they would consider which would convince them to withdraw their belief that the lunatics are plotting to kill them, however, their belief is still meaningful and is an example of a “blik”
what is a blik
attitudes/beliefs that are not sensitive to empirical evidence
cannot be verified or falsified
however they are still meaningful as they guide how we see and interact with the world
- example –> the trust you have in a car that it will world and will hold your weight, you have no evidence for this but you believe it to be the case
what does Hare claim about the meaningfulness of religious language
- “God exists” is unfalsifiable and unverifiable
- they are bliks which means they are expressions of the way a person sees the world, so they cannot be changed by offering up some empirical evidence
- these news are meaningful to the person that holds them
what objections can be raised to Hare’s view about religious language –> bliks
- religious believers seem to be stating more about the world when they say “God exists
- they seem to be making a genuine
- can we tell the difference between a delusional “blik” and a non-delusional one
