Religious language 2 Flashcards
(19 cards)
Vienna circle
what?
- Religious language is meaningless because it fails the strong verification principle.
- The strong verification principle is a good theory of meaning.
- If so, then talking about God has no meaning.
- So, talking about God has no meaning.
AJ Ayer // wvp
what?
- religious language is meaningless because it fails the weak verification principle.
- The weak verification principle is a good theory of meaning. This is plausible because it gets the right anwers about what sentences or statements should have meaning, according to our common sense ideas. For example, the sentence ‘all humans are mortal’ clearly has meaning accoring to our common sense and also has meaning according to the weak verification principle.
- If so, then talking about God has no meaning. (if used as an objection to Tillich, then use Tillich’s example of God is love to explain plausibility) This is plausible because according to the weak verification principle, religious language for example ‘God exists’ is meaningless as it is not an analytic statement and there isn’t a way to weakly empirically verify it because God is so other and transcendent meaning that according to the weak verification principle, religious language is meaningless.
- So: talking about God has no meaning.
difference between the weak and strong verification principle.
Strong verification: prove without a reason of doubt
E.g. The earth is round.
Weak verification: know it in principle and can provide evidence that makes it more likely, but we cannot prove it.
Eg. all humans are mortal.
Paul Tillich on Symbolism
- God is love means (God is the ground of all beings)
- God is the being part of love
- The part of love that participates in being
love qua being
AJ Ayer’s response to Tillich’s theory on symbolism
- Tillich’s theory wouldn’t work and is meaningless as the statements Tillich uses are not analytic and there isn’t a way to weakly empirically verify it to be true because it is impossible to verify whether God is being itself
- Cannot say anything about God
AJ Ayer’s response to Aquinas’s theory of attribution
According to Aquinas’s theory of analogy, saying ‘God is good’ is the same as saying ‘God is the cause of all good things’ This is meaningless for Ayer as it is not an analytic statement and there isn’t a way to weakly empirically verify it as God is so other and transcendent.
AJ Ayer’s response to the apophatic way?
According to the apophatic way, saying ‘God is good’ is the same as saying ‘the concept of bad doesn’t apply to god’- this is meaningless for Ayer as it is not an analytic statement and there isn’t a way to weakly empirically verify (no experiment to prove or disprove) it as God is so other and transcendent- cannot say anything meaningful about God (even what He is not)
Objections to the verification principles
- the verification principle(s) are self-undermining
- The (strong) verification principle is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. This is plausible because it is not analytic as it does not contain within itself our idea of meaning, and is not synthetic as there isn’t a way to empirically verifiable// set up a method to see if the verification principle is true.
- If so, then according to itself, it is meaningless. This is plausible because, according to itself, it is meaningless, as it is not an analytic statement, and there isn’t a way to empirically verify its meaning, meaning it fails its test of meaning.
- So the verification principle(s) are meaningless.
Anthony Flew and the Falsification Symposium Argument 1: God as undetectable
Who? A 20th-century atheist inspired by Ayer and Karl Popper (what it meant to be scientific was to be falsifiable)
what? Religious language is cognitive but meaningless because God is transcendent, meaning that he is unfalsifiable by the falsification principle; God is ineffable, etc, meaning that God cannot make a practical difference in our lives.
- For a statement to be meaningful, it must be capable of being falsified. This is plausible due to the falsification principle, which is illustrated by the borrowed parable of the invisible gardener. n this parable, the believer asserts, “There is a gardener who is intangible, etc.,” despite all the reasons that the non-believer offers as to why there isn’t a gardener. This claim of an “invisible, intangible” gardener is intuitively meaningless because it does not impact the believer’s life. According to Flew, it is meaningless because the believer does not accept falsification; thus, it makes no difference to the believer’s life whether or not a gardener exists, rendering the assertion that “There is a gardener who is invisible and intangible, etc.” devoid of meaning.
- If so, then ‘God exists’ is meaningless. This is plausible because God is transcendent meaning the statement is unfalsifiable and meaningless.
- So, ‘God exists’ is meaningless.
Own example; saying I am a genius but there is no way of everyone ever knowing or recognising it because everyone is unable to fathom the level of gentleness meaning that it makes no difference to our lives and so, is meaningless.
Flew’s Argument 2: Theodicies
what? Religious language is cognitive and meaningless. It fails the falsification principle because it dies a death of a thousand qualifications, as exemplified by the countless theodicies against the problem of evil to assert God’s nature as being omnibenevolent.
- The statement ‘God loves us’ is unfalsifiable. This is plausible because all the evidence suggests that God doesn’t love us, for example, the problem of evil and the prevalence of pain and suffering in the world, believers still defend the statement “God loves us” with countless theodicies, meaning that it is unfalsifiable, even though God loves us in mysterious ways it may not make a difference to our lives..
- If so, the statement “God loves us” is meaningless. Plausible because of the falsification principle
- SO, (2)
RM Hare// Response to Flew
Who? Oxford moral philosopher who responded to logical positivism and emotivism and was inspired by Hume
Blik: a non-cognitive commitment to explain and predict experiences (or the world) in certain ways; it can’t be true or false as it is not cognitive.
E.g., why is belief in the external world is a blik.
- Bliks are meaningless.
This is plausible because of the Parable of the murderous dons; the parable explains a student who is convinced that all the dons are out to murder hum. His friends introduce him to all the nicest and respectable dons to try and show the student that this is not the case. However the student is still convinced that all the dons are going to plot to murder him and them being nice is a way to reel him into their plan;This is a blik because he has made a non-cognitive commitment (all the dons are out to murder him) that he uses to explain why the dons are acting so nice to him and that he uses to predict that in the future all the dons will try and murder him and so it is meaningful because of the impact this belief makes to his life. - If so, then belief in God or ‘God exists’ is meaningful. This is plausible because commitment to belief in God is a blik because it is a non-cognitive commitment that explains the world (for example good things that happen or bad things that happen as a part of God’s plan) and can be used to predict the world, in the way that your actions.
- So, (2)
Aquinas’ response to Hare
Aquinas would argue that Hare is wrong in claiming that “belief in God” is a blik because many believers think they can prove that belief in God is cognitive. This is evident through Aquinas’ “Five Ways” and other arguments from observation, which aim to demonstrate the truth of God’s existence. Since bliks are non-cognitive (they cannot be proven true or false), belief in God cannot be classified as a blik. Therefore, Flew’s assumption that belief in God is cognitive remains valid, as it can supposedly be proven true or false by believers. However, because believers often insist that belief in God is true regardless of evidence, it becomes unfalsifiable. According to Flew, this unfalsifiability renders belief in God meaningless, as it does not allow for genuine testing or disproof.
Basil Mitchell
who? Philosophy of religion and language, participant at the falsification symposium.
what? Religious language is cognitive, meaningful and unfalsifiable
why?
- Language is meaningful if we recognise the need to respond to prima facie evidence that counts against it. This is plausible because of the Parable of the partisan; the partisan expresses faith in a stranger that he is on the side of the resistance despite evidence to the contrary. The partisan says, “The stranger is on the side of the resistance”, which is intuitively meaningful. (He recognises the evidence against it //recognises this with examples from the parable)This is cognitive (evidence for the stranger being on their sides// can be true or false) and is meaningful because it has an impact on the partisan’s life and is meaningful according to our linguistic intuitions. Meaning that the “stranger is on the side of the resistance” is meaningful because the partisan has recognised the prima facie evidence that counts against his claims and still expresses faith in the stranger meaning that it is meaningful.
- If so, then “God loves us” is cognitive and meaningful. This is plausible because “God loves”( also an article of faith because it) is cognitive, and believers still choose to believe despite recognising all the contrary prima facie evidence such as pain and suffering in the world, and this does have an impact on people’s lives.
- So, 2
Response to Flew to Mitchell
Flew would reply that there is a disanalogy between the partisan and God and it does not work because we cannot use the parable of the partisan to understand religious language. This is because Flew asserts that the prevalence of evil and suffering in the world is conclusive evidence against the existence of God, whereas Mitchell would argue that this is just prima facie evidence. This is explained further because in the parable of the partisan, there are good reasons for the stranger to be a part of the police; however, there is no good reason for God to make evil, therefore it is disanalogous.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Who? was a logical positivist (linguistic empiricism), then realised it was too narrow because it used science as a model for all languages, when this is not the case.
what? He argued that religious language, such as “God exists” or “God loves us,” is meaningful because it participates in a language game; phrases like this align with what the community considers to make sense according to its norms.
why?
1. The meaning of a sentence depends on its use. This is plausible due to the example of ‘Slab!’ can be taken to mean many things depending on its use, for example, ‘Careful a slab is falling’ or ‘Gimme a slab’ or ‘I hate slabs.’
2. If so, then the meaning of “God exists” depends on its use. This is plausible because this is also an instance of premise 1, just as “Slab!”
3. If so, the meaning of God’s existence is to give us a frame of reference. This is plausible because a frame of reference is a way of understanding and predicting the world and so “God exists” expresses a way of understanding and predicting the world. For example a natural disaster if we take “God exists” and make this our frame of reference then we can explain and predict this could be due to God punishing us or to have faith in God’s plan and recovery.
4. SO, (3)
Own example: Nicky Cruz was a gang leader who lived a life of crime and violence. He encountered a priest who was trying to convert him, and in response, Nicky slapped the priest. The priest then said, “Jesus loves you,” which made Nicky Cruz feel guilty and ultimately led him to turn to God and improve his life. Wilkerson (the priest) telling Cruz, “Jesus loves you,” provides a frame of reference as this changes Nicky Cruz’s perception of the world, helping him realise that he is loved in the world, and even after all the bad stuff he is forgiven. So it provides a new way of understanding and predicting the world.
Own Example: An example of this would be the way Van Buren interprets the bible. Statements like “Jesus is lord” are talking about a commitment to a way of life-based on the life of the historical Jesus which is essentially using “Jesus is lord” as a frame of reference.
Wittgenstein Argument 2
- A sentence has meaning if it makes a legitimate move in a language game. This is plausible because a language game is a set of community norms regarding language use, and for something to have meaning, it must fit in with the societal norms of what should make sense, and be a legitimate move within a language game. For example, the phrase “checkmate” is meaningful because it fits in with the context of a chess game and makes sense due to the norms of the chess community on what should make sense and is meaningful but wouldn’t make sense in the context of a maths classroom to answer the question 2+2.
- If so, religious language has meaning. This is plausible because the religious language for example “God exists” is a legitimate move within a language game as it is something that the community of believers would take to make sense and have meaning..
- So, religious language has meaning.
Van Buren (the influence of Wittgenstein on religious texts)
Who? Liberal theologian; takes the bible and make it fit within modern society; inspired by Wittgenstein
Who and what? Buren, a liberal theologian inspired by Wittgenstein, thought that religious language has no meaning except in context (a form of life). For example, “Jesus is Lord”, has meaning in the context of the historical Jesus (legitimate move in the language game; Christian community), and it is talking about a commitment to a way of life based on this commitment (frame of reference).
Own Example: An example of this would be the way Van Buren interprets the bible. Statements like “Jesus is lord” are talking about a commitment to a way of life based on the life of the historical Jesus which is essentially using “Jesus is lord” as a frame of reference.
George Lindbeck (the influence of Wittgenstein on religious texts)
Who? Post-liberal theologian, inspired by Wittgenstein.
What? Thought that we should not try to justify or defend religious beliefs to secularists (religion and world should be kept in different language games, and if they are put together, it makes a grammatical error). He thought. Instead, we should adopt a “cultural-linguistic approach” (language game) and just try to explain how they function within the language game and form of life. For example, “Jesus is lord” makes sense within the Christian language game and shows a commitment to a way of life (frame of reference).
Aquinas: Objection to Wittgenstein
What? Aquinas would disagree with Wittgenstein’s suggestion that religious language is non-cognitive and instead would propose that religious language is cognitive because talking about God is talking about something real, describing something real in the world and can be proved true using the 5 ways so has to be cognitive.
