Religous language is meaningless Flashcards
(11 cards)
Ayer - Verification Principle
A statement only has meaning if it can be empirically verified or analytically verified.
Any statement that does not fit these descriptions is meaningless.
Verification principle in relation to religious language
Statements like ‘God exists’ are not analytic truths.
There is no self-contradiction in saying ‘God does not exist’
God exists also cannot be empirically proven.
Cannot prove from experience the existence of God.
God exists is not falsifiable - Is not meaningful as it can not be proven to be true or false.
Problem with Ayers verification principle
It is self-defeating
The verification principle fails its own test
Ayer’s claim that a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable is itself neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable.
Therefore, according to its own criteria - the verification principle is meaningless.
What is Falsifiability ?
Falsifiable statements are meaningful and capable of being true or false.
Unfalsifiable statements are meaningless and are not capable or being true or false.
What qualifies for a statement to be falsifiable ?
If there is some possible evidence that could count against it. (can prove it true and can prove it false).
If not it is meaningless
what is an example of a falsifiable statement ?
Water boils at 100*
It can be proven wrong by some possible observation/test.
We could heat a beacon of water to this temp but it may not boil despite having a reliable thermometer.
This statement is meaningful because possible tests show that it can be proven wrong.
What is an example of an unfalsifiable statement?
‘God exists’
There is no possible observation that can prove or disprove it
Therefore ‘God exists’ is not meaningful.
Antony flew - Invisible gardener analogy
What does the analogy aim to show?
That religious language like ‘God exists’ is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.
Outline the analogy pf the invisible gardener
Two explorers find a clearing in the jungle - both weeds/flowers grow here.
Explorer A argues that the clearing is because of a gardener.
Explorer B disagrees.
To settle the argument they keep watch for a gardener.
After a few days they have not seen him.
Explorer A argues that the gardener is invisible.
They choose to put up an electric fence and a guard dog instead to catch him.
After a few days they still did not catch him.
Explorer A argues that the gardener is invisible and intangible (no sound/smell)
Explorer B argues what is the difference between this claim and the claim that he does not exists?
Explorer A’s theory is unfalsifiable - nothing can prove or disprove his theory.
The theory/statement the clearing was caused by a gardener is meaningless.
In relation to God exists
Jungle clearing = World
Invisible Gardener = God
Flowers = Good
Weeds = Evil
What does Flews analogy tell us?
‘God exists’ is meaningless because it is unfalsifiable. - In the same way the existence of the invisible gardener is.
Cannot use the problem of Evil as evidence against his existence as the religious believer would just create reasons why an omnipotent/omnibenevolent God would allow evil.
