20th Century Religious Language

define cognitive

statements ab god that we know to be true/false

define non cognitive

statements ab god that express emotion and are not subject to truth/falsity

define logical positivism

a movement in philosophy that believed the aim of philosophers should be to analyse language esp the language of science, to decide what is meaningful

define the verification principle

the belief that statements are only meaningful if they can be verified by the senses

define tautology

a phrase where the same thing is said twice in diff worlds

what do supporters of the verification principle believe?

religious statements are meaningless as they cannot empirically checked

focus on language

wittgenstein 'philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday'

'whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent'

suggests that focusing on language provides a way forward for philosophers

who were the vienna circle

group of philosophers who met met in the 1920/30s

what did the vienna circle believe?

some statements were meaningful + others were not

to identify the difference, they came up w the verification principle

a statement is only meaningful if it is able to be verified by an actual experience

scientific claims ab the world are meaningful, but religious + ethical claims are not

intro to a.j ayer

accepted the basic idea behind the verification principle

the vienna circle that metaphysics should be rejected

for a statement to be meaningful it must be either a tautology something true by definition - a priori, or something verifiable in principle (a posteriori)

ayer's beliefs

verifiable in principle distinguishes ayer from the vienna circle

we are not required to prove something by direct observation

we merely have to be able to say how it would be possible to verify it

ayer's example

'there are mountains on the on the far side of the moon' which could not be conclusively verified at the time of writing

it is a meaningful statement as if we were to orbit the moon we would be able to verify this claim

arguments for ayer's verification principle

- offers an improvement on the limited verification principle (widens what is meaningful to discussions of historical claims + scientific laws)

- some philosophers argue religious + ethical claims are rightly excluded as they are different to other types of statements

- ayer softens the demand for absolute verification of a statement - a statement may not be completely provable but can be accepted if it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt (weak verification)

arguments against ayer's verification principle

- stronger form of verification put forward by the vienna circle has been criticised as too rigid

- it is wrong to rule out all religious statements. swinburne = some religious claims eg resurrection would be verifiable if true

- self refuting. the claim that statements are only meaningful if they are tautologies or verifiable in principle is neither a tautology/verifiable in the principle itself

ayer: VP is not a statement but a theory, does not need to pass the test

hick's challenge to ayer

hick supports to verification principle

argues religious claims are verifiable

hick's example

two travellers on a road arguing ab whether the road leads to the celestial city/ road ends

they turn the corner and the celestial city is there

hick: religious statements are meaningful eschatologically

what is eschatological verification?

statements, such as "God exists" can be verified at the end of time

define falsification

the principle that a statement is a genuine scientific assertion if it is possible to saw how it could be disproved empirically

what is the falsification symposium?

a series of articles written in the 50s which responded to flew's initial presentation of falsification

karl popper

devised the falsification theory as a test for what is science + what is merely pseudo science ( a theory pretending to be scientific)

what did popper believe?

when scientists make a claim, they invite others to test their hypothesis to see if it can be disproved

how did popper criticise freud's psychology?

theories like the oedipus complex are not falsifiable

if it cannot be subject to tests that show how it would be false, it is not a real scientific theory, merely pseudo-science

what did flew say the problem with religious language is?

it cannot be falsified + religious statements are not statements at all

flew + garden analogy

story adapted from john of wisdom

two explorers finding a garden _one explorer believes there is a gardener + the other doesn't. they try to catch the gardener, but fail. the believer continues to argue the gardener exists but the story now has changed

gardener must be; invisible, intangible, secret

flew's conclusions

→ religious claims ab the world aren't claims at all as they cannot be tested

→ when challenged, believers water down their claims + shift the goalposts so much they are not saying anything at all

what did flew say religious claims suffer?

THE DEATH OF A THOUSAND QUALIFICATIONS

example - PoE

when a believer is challenged over the claim that 'god loves people' it reduces god to:

'god loves people but allows free will, develops character, does not intervene, has a bigger plan, and moves in mysterious ways'

flew: how does this differ from there being no god at all?

what would have to happen for god to be disproved?

what did flew call religious statements?

NOT genuine assertions

define blik

a basic unfalsifiable belief

what thinkers responded to flew's challenge of religious language?

→ r.m hare

→ basil mitchell

r.m hare

(1919 - 2002)

Oxford "Prescriptivist" moral philosopher who argued that morality is an expression of human emotion and thus cannot be awarded fact status

hare's parable of the lunatic

a lunatic is convinced that all the dons at the uni want to kill him

friends arrange for him to meet the kindest dons

this does not convince him + he believes this simply shows how cunning the dons are to lull him into a false sense of secruity

hare's point

- trying to defend a religious belief on the grounds that flew misunderstands the language involved

- flew is wrong to apply scientific criteria to theological language

hare on bliks

we all have basic beliefs called 'bliks'

some bliks are reasonable + some are not

religious belief is a blik + cannot be empirically tested

analysing hare

- influenced by wittgenstein's language games - if hare is not right that religious belief is not scientific, this allows religious statements to have meaning to the individual + the challenge flew makes fails

- may seem inadequate as believers claiming that god loves us aren't just claiming a subjective truth; they believe themselves to be making a claim ab reality as a whole

basil mitchell

1917 - 2011

mitchell's parable of the partisan

during a war, a partisan meets a stranger who persuades him that he is the secret commander of the resistance despite sometimes working undercover

the stranger sometimes helps, but is sometimes seen in the oppositional uniform

when challenged, the partisan says 'the stranger knows best'

mitchell's point

- partly accepts flew's point

- there is evidence that counts for + against belief

- believer recognises that the problem of evil is an issue

- believer does not allow the evidence to decisively count against belief

- not bc they are a detached observer but committed to faith to trust in god

analysing mitchell

- recognises the role of evidence in a way hare doesn't

- if the believer is like hare's lunatic, evidence is irrelevant

- mitchell rejects the idea that religious beliefs are bliks

- supports flew's ideas that religious statements are assertions/claims

- unlike flew, sees a genuine role for faith

hick's view on falsification

- prefers verification to falsification as a test of religious statements

- verification + falsification are not opposites

- if religious belief is true, it can be verified eschatologically. if it is false, it cannot shown to be false

verification > falsification

swinburne's view on falsification

- questioned whether verification/ falsification is the correct test for religious statements

- illustration of toys in a cupboard coming alive at night when no one is watching them

- this is unverifiable + unfalsifiable, however still meaningful as we can understand the claim it makes

wittegenstein

austrian philosopher who worked primarily in logic,

taught at the University of Cambridge

'philosophical problems arise when language goes on holidiay'

many problems that philosophers have wrested w have been caused by a failure to pay attention to language

'what is your aim in philosophy? to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.'

if philosophical problems are caused by a lack of attention to language + this traps philosophers, the aim of philosophy has to be focus on language to solve this

'don't ask for the meaning. ask for the use'

w: the meanings of words are not rigid and fixed

the usage of the word is more important

meaning of a word is really its use

use of language helps to create our perspective of the world

wittegenstein's language games

language use is like playing a game w rules

in groups we have agreed rules ab how words are used

if we pointed at a noun and said a diff noun we would be corrected as someone would do if we moved a chess piece incorrectly

what did wittgenstien constitute as language games?

religious language + language of diff religious groups in itself is a language game

example of language games

if we said 'god allows suffering to develop. our character and we will be rewarded in heaven' we cannot say the statement is true in a literal sense but it fits w a christian interpretation of the world.

it is not a statement that fits w an athiest/hindu language game

to suggest the best explanation of evil is that god does not exist does not fit in the rules of the game

wittgenstien - summary

argues for the religious statement, there is not a difference of opinion where one viewpoint is right + one is wrong, there are two ways of seeing

think illusions eg duck + rabbit

w on religious statements

religious statements are meaningful to those within the group despite the fact the statements are not cognitive

strengths of wittgenstein

- differentiates between religious + scientific statements + should be treated differently

- recognises the meaning is not fixed but changes w use + context

- recognises there are beliefs that we have that are groundless + we may not be able to provide reasons for them but they shape our world

weaknesses of wittgenstein

- believer may reject the idea that religious statements only have meaning to the individual - like flew + mitchell may see them as truth claims + cognitive statements

- language games are circular - gives words their meaning but the game itself is just a collection of words

- w over analyses langugae + takes apart a perfectly working clock and then wonders why it doesn't work' (gellner)

cognitive (a) vs non cognitive (w) approaches

→ religious believers believers believe they are speaking cognitively ab god

→ ayer + flew challenged the cognitive view - w recognises this is a challenge that has to be answered

- w suggests only those within the game are able to understand rl unlike a

how non cognitive approaches affect interpretation of religious texts

→ non cognitive approach to scripture suggests jesus rose from the dead is not a historical claim but a way of seeing + understanding the world; for some this weakens key elements of christianity

→ religious ppl interpret some texts symbolically + few believe the genesis accounts of creation are literal truths. key to religious texts may not be their literal truth but their function within faith communities

→ a's view of scripture is diff to scholars who take a critical view of biblical texts. a sees texts cognitively, they make claims that are true in reality

how far does a's analogical view of theological language remain valuable in philosophy of religion?

→ practical + still used in christianity - offers insight into the nature of god w/o reducing him to a human level

→ goes beyond language + perspectives on this Q may be driven by beliefs ab scripture + importance of reason/ revelation