Religious language in the 20th century

Question 1

Who were the logical positivists/Vienna Circle?

Answer 1

A group of mathematicians, scientists and philosophers who analysed language to decide what was meaningful and worth discussing.

Question 2

What do the logical positivists say about religious language?

Answer 2

It is not meaningful, as it cannot be tested by the five senses

Question 3

What is a cognitive statement?

Answer 3

Aim to literally describe how the world is, and can be true or false.

Question 4

What is a non-cognitive statement?

Answer 4

Does not aim to convey facts, it is used to describe emotions, feelings and spirituality.

Question 5

What did Comte and Mill say that influenced the logical positivists?

Answer 5

They were impressed by the power of science and believed it should be universally extended to all areas of intellectual enquiry.

Question 6

How did Hume’s fork influence the logical positivists?

Answer 6

There are 2 types of knowledge - analytical (true/false by definition) and synthetic (can be observed and then verified).

These two statements can never cross.

Question 7

What is Bertrand Russells’ teapot analogy?

Answer 7

If someone claimed that there is a teapot orbiting the sun in space which can’t be detected by a telescope - it would be unreasonable to expect people to believe in this - it can’t be disproven.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim - not others to disprove.

Question 8

How did Russel’s teapot influence the logical positivists?

Answer 8

You can’t expect people to believe in something that can’t be disproven - there must be empirical evidence.

Question 9

What does the strong verification principle say a statement requires to be meaningful?

Answer 9

It is only meaningful if it can be verified by experience (synthetic/empirical) or if it is true by definition (analytic/a tautology)

Question 10

Why does the strong verification principle not work?

Answer 10

You can’t make statements about history (as they can’t immediately be verified by empirical evidence).

You can’t make statements about scientific laws as they are based on theory, you assume they will always act in the same way.

Question 11

What are Swinburne’s examples of things that can’t be verified but we all accept?

Answer 11

‘all humans are mortal’ and ‘all ravens are black’ - these can’t be verified in practice but we consider them to be meaningful.

Question 12

What is Swinburne’s toy analogy?

Answer 12

What if toys come alive when humans aren’t in the room, but return to normal when they are there.

This is unable to be verified or falsified but still could be true.

Question 13

What is Brummer and DZ Phillips’ criticisms of the strong verification principle?

Answer 13

Faith statements shouldn’t be treated in the same way as scientific claims, the verification principle is too narrow.

Question 14

What is Ayer’s weak verification principle?

Answer 14

He deemed the strong verification principle as too restrictive.

So, he adds that theoretical statements can be verified and therefore meaningful.

Question 15

Ayer quote on weak verification

Answer 15

“God talk is evidently nonsense”

Question 16

How does Hick criticise verificationism?

Answer 16

Eschatologically, religious language is verifiable.

Believers would be able to verify statements around God/heaven at the end of life.

Therefore religious language isn’t meaningless.

Question 17

Explain what Wittgenstein means by language games?

Answer 17

Language is used in a similar way to games - there are similarities in phrases we use in different contexts.

But if two people are in the same language game, the language they are using is meaningful.

Question 18

What does Culpitt argue about religious language?

Answer 18

All language doesn’t point to an objective true or false reality - its meaning depends on the form of life they’re used.

Question 19

What does Phillips say about religious language?

Answer 19

Language could be non-cognitive, depending on the form of life its used. Factual statements are cognitive but music/art aren’t.

Both can still be meaningful.

Question 20

What does Ayer say about ethical discussions?

Answer 20

They are non-cognitive.

But they are meaningful when running and observing society.

Religious statements are still “literally meaningless”

Question 21

Does Aquinas say religious language is cognitive or non-cognitive?

Answer 21

Cognitive.

Even through it has to be used analogically, there are truth claims surrounding creation/existence.

Question 22

Why might William James argue that religious language is cognitive?

Answer 22

religious experiences point to something greater through their effects.

BUT…he des say that they do not necessarily prove God’s existence.

Question 23

What would Kant say about religious language being cognitive or non-cognitive?

Answer 23

Non-cogntitive?

God is so beyond us that we can’t make factual claims.

Question 24

What is a traditional/conservative approach to the Bible?

Answer 24

The message of the Bible is the true and authentic message of God.

Therefore, cognitive.

Question 25

What is a liberal approach to the Bible?

Answer 25

The Bible needs to be interpreted for our own times - it presents a non-literal view of the world. Therefore. non-cognitive.

Question 26

What is a fundamentalist approach to the Bible?

Answer 26

The Bible is factual and cognitive.

Question 27

What is Hick's parable of the celestial city?

Answer 27

He explains this through the parable of the celestial city. Two travellers are on a road (representing life), one believes a celestial city (representing afterlife) is at the end, but the other doesn’t. When they reach the end, Hick remarks they will discover that one had been right all along. So there is a way to verify religious language when we reach the end of the road of life, when we die.

Question 28

What is Ayer's criticism of Hick's Eschatological verification?

Answer 28

We do not know an afterlife is a place which exists where one might do relevant observations to verify religious language. If death is annihilation there won’t be a moment of realisation of that. So if there is no afterlife, we won’t be able to verify religious language as either true or false. Therefore, we cannot say that there is a way to verify religious language. It’s not sufficient to simply imagine a scenario where the relevant observation-conditions exist. We need to actually know that they do exist.

Question 29

Explain the term Wittgensteinian fideism

Answer 29

Religion is purely a matter of faith. It is a totally separate language game to science which is a matter of a posteriori reason.

Question 30

What is a weakness of Wittgenstein's language games?

Answer 30

Suggests that when a religious person says ‘God exists’ they aren’t actually claiming that God exists in objective reality in a scientific sense. They are just expressing their participation in a certain form of life. They are speaking in a certain way due to internalising a set of behavioural rules developed in a culture over time.