Intro
Karl and popper, only scientific language is meaningful as it can be falsified
Should assume atheism as default position
Flew
- re is meaningless as not falsifiable. Cognitive view of language
- believers do not accepts evidence to falsify them
- die a death of a thousand qualifications
Parable of invisible Gardner
Flew analysis
+ Davies, there are elephants in Africa
+ waistmann, conditions
+ Carnap, god is beyond experience
- Swinburne, toys
- Tillich, symbol
- Wittgenstein
- Ayer
- plantinga, have the right to believe
Hare
Non cog view of language
Unfalsifiable but meaningful
University student
Religious beliefs are bliks and have impact on world
Hare analysis
+ Wittgenstein, ungrounded belied
+ Tillich
+Hume, bliks
+ Kant, noumenal and phenomenal reality. Bliks are part of noumenal reality
- c s Evans, are they right or wrong
- flew - believers take language cognitively eg. Jesus rose from the dead
- hick, if we can’t falsify bliks how can we say if they’re good or bad
Mitchell
Cognitive view of language
Statements are meaningful if falsifiable. Re can be falsified
Sufficient evidence gives meaning
Eg. Partisan
Has sufficient evidence to have his belief. Hares university student doesn’t admit anything that counts against bliks
Mitchell analysis
+ hick eschatological verification
- Carnap
- Weismann
- flew, faith is subjective
- Davies. Eg. Can be unverifiable and meaningful
