Twentieth-century perspectives Flashcards
religious language: twentieth century perspectives (26 cards)
two uses of language
-cognitive = truth claims, assert facts, something that can be known as either true or false
-non-cognitive = don’t describe facts and cannot be determined as true or false
logical positivist
-Vienna circle, led by Schlick, discussed issues rising in logic
-believed that theological interpretations of experiences belonged to the past – to an ‘unenlightened’ age when God was used as an explanation for everything (Comte)
-Comte – ‘positivist’ age, when the only useful form of evidence = available to the senses (empirical evidence), that which can be tested by science
verification: A.J Ayer
-1936 – ‘Language, Truth and Logic’
-used ideas from Wittgenstein and Vienna circle, set down rules to judge if language means anything
-statements = meaningful if fall into analytical and synthetic
verification: analytical statements
-true by definition
-include tautologies, statements that say the same thing ‘ice is icy’
-mathematic statements = meaningful
verification: synthetic statements
-not part of a definition
-additional information needed
-testing the truth by using senses
verifiability theory
-if statements = not analytical or verifiable, therefore says nothing about reality – is meaningless
-“the criterion we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of facts is the criterion of verifiability”
-statements have to be capable of being tested to call them ‘true or false’
-in order for any statement to be meaningful it has to be verifiable using empirical methods
verifiability theory and religious language
-any religious language or claims about God (‘the Lord is my Shepherd’) cannot be verifiable as true or false by senses = meaningless
-thus, God is: perfect, immutable and transcendent tells us nothing about the world around us, talking of ideas beyond human sense observation
-religious experiences = meaningless, not verifiable
-religious believers cannot suggest a test which would help solve whether the claims are true or false
-isn’t arguing that statements aren’t important, just that they’re unverifiable, have no factual significance
-“such reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense”
strengths of verification
-straightforward in what it demands, meaningful statements are either true by definition or else are verifiable by sense experiences, removes all questions of emotion and only concentrates on facts
-is in line with science, demands we observe the world empirically
-demands a sense of reality in what we say about world, points out a major issue with religious language, people sometimes makes religious statements without attempting to justify them in any way
weaknesses of verification
-Swinburne, people generally accept ‘all ravens are black’ but no way to confirm this statement, cannot be proved true or false, yet it is still meaningful
-demands are too narrow, might be straightforward but doesn’t mean it’s right, rules out all sorts of language as being meaningless including moral statements, only works when discussing matters of fact
-to say that it is in line with science has many problems; much of science deals with entities that cannot be directly observed, how can their existence be verified by the VP, science doesn’t work exclusively through verification
-Popper, works primarily through falsification
-VP isn’t verifiable in principle, fails both of its own criteria for deciding what is a factual statements, not true by definition and isn’t verifiable in principle
does verification principle successfully show that religious language is meaningless?
- is not a universally accepted criterion for meaning, and its application to religious language is highly criticised
-Religious language, while often expressing claims that are not easily verifiable, may still have meaning and significance for believers, even if it doesn’t conform to strict scientific standards
Falsification principle: Flew’s article ‘theology and falsification’
-alternative to VP
-drew on work of logical positivists but suggested that we should focus on falsifiability
-isn’t about presenting empirical evidence in support of something about about asserting something and at the same time knowing what evidence can count against it
-“an assertion which doesn’t rule out anything, but rather is compatible with any conceivable state doesn’t appear to assert anything either” – Evans
Flew: parable of the gardener (John Wisdom)
-2 explorers find a clearing in a jungle, one explorers believes there is a gardener, the other doesn’t
-set watches, cameras, dogs etc.
-when the gardener is never detected, one explorer says that the gardener is invisible, other explorer says what makes this gardener not invisible?
-analogy used to explain religious views
-people go on believing in God and no experience can prove it wrong, always an answer
-end up modifying their statements when challenged = statements no longer resemble the original claim about God
Flew continued
-“their belief in God dies a ‘death by a thousand qualifications’”
-means original belief is lost due to amount of qualifications used to justify the idea
-example, when believers say ‘God is different from us’ they end up with a description of God that has no content as statements = empty
-not meaningful but ‘vacuous’
-when theists talk about God they refuse to rule out any state of affair
-still cling to original assertion, while qualifying it with claims that God’s love = mysterious or doesn’t operate in accordance with normal expectations of love
R.M Hare
-gave radical response to Flew’s article
-agreed that Flew had succeeded in demonstrating failure of religious language to make meaningful truth claims
-Hare suggests that when people use RL, shouldn’t be interpreted as truth claims in a cognitive sense but as expressions of a ‘blik’ – expression of personal interpretation of world
-religious claims = expressions of personal attitudes or commitments to a particular way of life, not testable assertions but a way of showing how we view the world
-falsification works only when asserting cognitive claims, RL falls into non-cognitive territory, need to be viewed as a ‘blik’
R.M Hare – Bliks
-used parable of lunatic who believes all his teachers at university are trying to kill him, is the way in which the lunatic saw the world and nothing could change his view
-‘blik’ – describes the way in which people see and interpret the world, is a framework for understanding the world and finding meaning in it
-importance of a ‘blik’ = aren’t falsifiable, no evidence or argument can demonstrate the falseness of a blik
-Flew pointed out that man theists intend their claims to be cognitive
Basil Mitchell – parable of the partisan and the stranger
-partisan meets a stranger, strongly favourable impression on him
-stranger asks the partisan to trust him
-makes a commitment to the stranger, doesn’t change, will defend the stranger to the other resistance fighters
-tells himself there are reasonable explanations for the stranger’s behaviour
-differs from Hare’s = arguing that religious beliefs don’t have factual content (are cognitive)
-still content to religious assertions of the existence of a loving God
-differs as Hare argues that ‘bliks’ = groundless, for Mitchell, the partisan’s trust in stranger isn’t groundless, make choices to trust
-people who don’t accept weight of evidence against beliefs = guilty of failure of faith
-“religious believers have to take care not to create a ‘vacuous formulae which experience makes no difference’”
strengths of falsification
-clear criterion for meaningfulness: offers a straightforward test for whether religious statements are meaningful — they must be open to falsification, encourages logical clarity
-Promotes intellectual honesty: challenges believers to seriously consider what would count against their beliefs, preventing “death by a thousand qualifications”
-Supports the scientific method: mirrors Popper’s view that scientific claims must be falsifiable, helping to distinguish religious belief from empirical science — a key concern for Logical Positivists.
weaknesses of falsification
-Fails to capture the nature of religious language: Mitchell argues that believers can rationally maintain faith even when faced with evidence against it — religious language is about trust, not constant falsifiability
Religious statements are non-cognitive: Hare introduced the idea of ‘bliks’ — non-rational but meaningful world views — meaning that religious language expresses commitment, not empirical claims, and shouldn’t be judged by falsification standards
-Falsification principle itself is not falsifiable: critics (Ward) argue the Falsification Principle is self-defeating because the claim “only falsifiable statements are meaningful” cannot itself be falsified
-Undermines meaningful personal experiences:
Religious believers base faith on personal or transcendent experiences, which are not easily testable but still profoundly meaningful
Wittgenstein
-“whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent”
-had a strong influence on Vienna circle, attempted to set out criteria to demonstrate what can and cannot be expressed in language
-wasn’t a member of logical positivists
-believed that reality isn’t all intelligible to us, many aspects of reality we can experience with our senses other aspects we cannot
-people should limit themselves to talking only about the parts of reality that can be conceived
-other areas may or may not be true but we will never know, we are unable to talk about them meaningfully
-criticised himself, said that his criteria was too narrow
-moved to ‘language games’
Wittgenstein – language games
-meaning of words are determined by ‘language game’ the words are part of
-words meaning comes from situation words are used
-example of chess, rules state how pieces can move, to talk of ‘queen’ or ‘pawns’ in any other context wouldn’t make sense, if you use words that don’t follow the particular words, will be talking nonsense
-‘Lebensform’ or ‘form of life’ to signify the context that the language might be used
‘Groundless Beliefs’
-demonstrated how statements made are often unsupported/groundless
-example, cannot justify the statement ‘this is a powerpoint’, cannot find reasoning to support why we call it this
-definitions are ‘groundless beliefs’ but they shape the way we understand the world
-similar to religious beliefs, views like heaven and hell = ‘groundless’, cannot provide evidence for or against them, isn’t about facts but do shape the way we think and see the world
-more people participating, the more they will understand the language and special meanings, part of language game
-become more immersed in Christian community, develop deeper understanding of what ‘God loves us’ means in context and thus apply it to your own life
strengths of language games
-Respects the context of religious language: shows that religious language makes sense within a religious form of life — it doesn’t need to meet scientific or empirical standards to be meaningful
-Protects religious belief from external critique: religious statements are judged within the rules of the religious language game, they cannot be dismissed simply by scientific standards
-Explains diversity of meaning: Different forms of language have different purposes and rules. Language games explain how “God exists” and “E=mc²” are meaningful in different ways
-Acknowledges the communal aspect of language: language is social — meaning is found in shared use, fits how religious communities use language to shape belief, worship, and identity
further support
-Phillips – religious language is meaningful for those who genuinely use it, it doesn’t need to be justified to those who don’t participate in that particular language game
-many terms and concepts only make sense when participating in that game
-makes no sense to talk of salvation, prayer etc outside of religious context
-Donovan – “that way of speaking is a useful reminder that misunderstandings and confusion are likely to result if statements are taken away from their context, and analysed without regard to the circumstance in which they are uttered” Religious Language, can’t use science terms to criticise religious terms
weaknesses of language games
-Could make religious belief seem subjective or isolated:
If religious language only makes sense to insiders, it risks making faith seem cut off from objective reality — leads to relativism
-Doesn’t allow for meaningful debate between different language games: different language games have their own rules, then scientific or philosophical challenges to religion might become meaningless, making serious discussion difficult
-Risk of fideism (blind faith): might imply that religious beliefs don’t need to be rationally defended, encouraging faith without critical engagement (Kai Nielsen)
-Religious believers often claim their language describes objective reality: believers see claims like “God exists” as truth claims about the world — not just internal rules within a community, can undermine this
