Studied by 8 people
What are the 3 key issues with religious statements?
Can be contradictory or paradoxical, e.g. God is omnipotent (paradox of the stone problem)
Can contain metaphysical terms that lie beyond human experience, e.g. God, or Heaven
Can appear figurative or metaphorical, e.g. God spoke to Abraham
Explain the complex relationship between religion and language
For example, the statement ‘God loves human beings’
I understand each of the words: God is an infinite, all powerful being, and I know what ‘love’ means and I know what human beings are.
However, the statement ‘God loves human beings’ doesn’t make sense in the conventional way as I cannot begin to understand what it means for God to love all human beings.
Aquinas pointed out that religious language only makes sense if we understand it as operating analogously.
An analogy is a method for explaining the unknown with reference to the known.
I understand, for example, what it means to love both my child and my dog. I understand that my child and my dog are two very different categories of living things.
I also understand how the idea of love is manifested in two completely different ways.
So, by analogy, I can begin to understand what it might mean when I talk of God loving human beings.
What is a cognitive statement (in the context of religious language)?
One which can be shown to be true or false.
In what way are statements meaningful (cognitivist response)?
Statements are meaningful in that they are expressions of our beliefs about the world.
A cognitive claim might argue that there is a direct relationship between the world and the language we use to describe the world.
Expressions of beliefs about the world can be true or false - they have a truth value (are truth-apt). So only truth apt (cognitive) statements are meaningful.
This is the view that logical positivists agree with (they believe that all statements which cannot be verified or falsified are, by definition, nonsense (utterances).
Would a cognitivist believer defend the arguments about God’s existence and God’s attributes as meaningful?
Yes.
P1 Sentences are meaningful if they are statements(expressions of belief about the world).
P2 Expressions of belief about the world are true or false (can be verified/falsified).
P3 'God exists' is the claim that there is a God that exists independently in the world, and reasons can be given to support this claim (for example, it can be verified - Hick,).
C Therefore 'God exists' is meaningful.
In what way are statements meaningful (non-cognitivist response)?
Non-cognitivists argue that a statement can be meaningful (but in a different way) if it cannot be verified or falsified.
Statements are meaningful in that they express some other type of mental state (non-cognitive), e.g. emotions, commands, values, etc.
A statement which cannot be verified or falsified but is still meaningful is non-cognitive.
Expressions of mental states are not making a claim about the world (and are neither true nor false)
Whilst a non-cognitive claim (like a religious one) may make an assertion about something about the world, the relationship between the world and the language associated with the religious claim is a mysterious one.
Would a non-cognitivist believer defend the arguments about God’s existence and God’s attributes as meaningful?
Yes but on very different grounds.
P1. Sentences are meaningful if they are expressions of a mental state, for example an attitude, emotion, value or way of seeing.
P2. Expressions of these non-cognitive mental states are neither true nor false (neither verifiable or falsifiable).
P3. 'God exists' or "God is supremely good' are not claims about the world (neither verifiable or falsifiable) but are an expression of non-cognitive mental states (for example, a fundamental attitude, the way in which we see the world - Hare).
C1. Therefore "God exists' and 'God is supremely good' are meaningful.
What is a proposition?
Statements which can be verified or falsified in fact or in theory.
Moritz Schlick said ‘The meaning of a proposition is its method of verification’.
What is the knowledge of logical positivists based on?
Verifiable facts
Taking science as its model, includes logic and maths
What is the Verification Principle?
The meaning of a proposition is its method of verification - Moritz Schlick
More commonly expressed as - The Verification Principle states that a proposition has meaning if it can be verified or falsified in fact or in theory.
What is the criteria for meaning according to the verification principle?
A sentence is meaningful if and only if
a) It is a tautology - it is true by definition
b) It can be shown to be true or false - it is verifiable
According to Ayer, a sentence is factually significant if…?
we know what observations in the world would lead us to accept the proposition as true, or false.
What is the difference between strong and weak strengths of verification?
Strong verification - conclusively verify/falsify it by observation
Weak verification - Describe some possible observation that make it probably true/false
What is the main problem with the verification principle?
The statement ‘a proposition has meaning if it can be verified or falsified in fact or in theory’ is not self-defining nor can it be verified empirically
So it is itself meaningless?
Altering this statement to the following ‘a meaningful proposition is one which can be verified or falsified in fact or in theory’ makes it a definition
As such it cannot be treated as a proposition and still holds meaning
What is Ayer’s standpoint on whether metaphysical claims are meaningful?
Ayer argues that although metaphysical claims appear to be meaningful, they are not - they are pseudo-statements lacking any factual significance.
This is because metaphysics makes claims about what lies beyond experience and observation, and these claims cannot be verified, nor are they true by definition.
What is Ayer’s standpoint on whether metaphysical claims are meaningful? (syllogism form)
This also applies to the metaphysical claims of religious language:
P1: Claims are meaningful if they are true by definition (analytic), or verifiable in principle (factually significant).
P2: Religious language makes claims that are not analytic/true by definition.
P3: Religious language makes claims about metaphysical entities (for example, God or Heaven).
P4: Metaphysical entities are beyond observation and experience and cannot be verified.
C1: Therefore religious claims are not factually significant because we do not know what conditions would need to be met for us to verify these claims as true/false.
C2: Therefore religious language makes claims like 'God exists' that are not meaningful, but are pseudo-statements.
Explain John Hick’s response to A.J.Ayer’s challenge to the status of metaphysical language
John Hick accepts the basic principle of the logical positivists and of Ayer (that a factually significant statement is one whose truth or falsity makes a difference to our experience of the world).
Hence why the statement ‘there is an invisible, intangible, inaudible and odourless duck in this room’ isn’t factually significant as whether it is true or not makes no difference to our experience of this room.
In the book Faith and Knowledge, Hick presented a simple argument based on a short parable, the ‘Parable of the Celestial City’
This parable illustrates that the Verification Principle cannot apply to religious assertions and so fails to provide any insight into the meaningfulness of religious statements.
The core of the idea of verification is the removal of rational doubt - John Hick
Hick instead argues that religious statements like ‘God exists’ can be verified so long as it is possible to describe an experience in which rational doubt about God's existence can be removed.
Explain John Hick’s response to A.J.Ayer’s challenge to the status of metaphysical language in the form of a syllogism
P1: Verification means we can describe a situation (in principle) in which rational doubt is removed.
P2: In principle, after someone dies, they will encounter and recognise God.
C1: Therefore, in principle, after someone dies the rational doubt that there is a God will be removed.
C2: Therefore the claim that 'God exists' can be verified in principle by at least one person.
What is the parable of the celestial city?
The parable of the celestial city (summarised);
Two people are travelling on a road. Person A believes that it leads to the Celestial City (Heaven); person B believes it leads nowhere in particular. On the road, they encounter moments of refreshment and delight, which person A thinks of as encouragement on the journey. They also encounter hardship and danger, which person A thinks of as tests. Person B believes none of this, saying they have no choice so they enjoy the good things and endure the bad things. But when they turn the last corner, one of them will be shown to be right and one will be shown to be wrong.
What does Hick refer to his response to A.J.Ayer’s challenge to the status of metaphysical language as?
Eschatological verification.
Explain what is meant by eschatological verification
The term ‘eschatology’ means ‘the theory of last things’ and in a theological context refers to the ideas connected to death, judgement, heaven and hell.
Was a criticism of logical positivism using verificationism.
Hick reworded the verification principle to ‘The core of the idea of verification is the removal of rational doubt’.
His parable illustrates that the Verification Principle cannot apply to religious assertions and so fails to provide any insight into the meaningfulness of religious statements.
Hick instead argues that religious statements like ‘God exists’ can be verified so long as it is possible to describe an experience in which rational doubt about God's existence can be removed.
Explain the issues arising from Hick’s eschatological verification
Hick recognises that the possibility of the afterlife depends on the metaphysical possibility of an individual person surviving their death - their personal identity must remain the same but this might not be the case.
Hick also acknowledges that, for his argument to succeed, the person who is resurrected must be able to recognise God as God.
It may be the case that only a theistic believer will be capable of this recognition
But so long as recognition is a logical possibility, Hick thinks his argument succeeds.
But this might not be the case as issues of personal identity are complex and problematic;
there is no philosophical consensus that someone being teleported, or being resurrected, will in fact be the same person rather than an identical duplicate who is not the same person. Hick's argument is most vulnerable at this critical point.
Also, if there is no God, we would not be able to verify whether or not there is a God after our death.
Explain how Antony Flew used Popper’s theory of falsification in the context of God
‘What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?
What does Antony Flew say about religious statements being falsified?
Religious statements cannot be falsified because they are not genuine assertions - used the parable of the invisible gardener to demonstrate.
What does Basil Mitchell say about religious statements being falsified?
Religious statements cannot conclusively be falsified, but they are assertions - used the parable of the partisan to demonstrate.
What does R.M.Hare say about religious statements being falsified?
It is not relevant whether religious statements can be falsified because they are expressions of bliks - used the parable of the paranoid student to demonstrate.
Explain the parable of the gardener
Two people find a clearing in a jungle; one sees evidence that there is a gardener, the other disagrees. They keep watch but see no one. “Perhaps it is an invisible gardener," says the believer. They set up an electric fence, patrolling with dogs. But there are no movements, no sounds. 'Perhaps it is an invisible, intangible, inaudible gardener.' At this point, the septic despairs, asking, 'How does your claim differ from there being no gardener at all?'
Explain Flew’s point in the parable of the gardener
In each scenario the final position reached by the believer does not appear to differ in any way from a complete denial of the original assertion
The original assertions ‘A gardener tends this plot’ and ‘There is an elephant under my desk’ initially appear to be meaningful.
They are ordinary statements which are presented as propositions, or statements which can be verified or falsified.
BUT
Each attempt at falsifying the statement was met with a qualification.
Flew argues that the statement has died the ‘death of a thousand qualifications’.
As all the attempts by the sceptics at falsifying the original statements are fruitless the original statement is meaningless.
Flew argues that an assertion is genuine when you know what the world would look like if your claim were false.
Explain Flew’s argument in the form of a syllogism
P1. A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified; a meaningless assertion cannot be falsified.
P2. To falsify an assertion means describing what the world would be like if that statement were false.
P3. Atheists provide many examples of what the world would be like if the claims 'God exists' or 'God loves us like a father' were false (for example, pointless suffering in the world).
P4. Believers refuse to accept these examples as falsifying - instead they qualify or amend their claims to avoid them being falsified.
P5. Moreover, believers cannot conceive of any examples of what the world would look like if the claims 'God exists' and 'God loves us' were false.
C1. Therefore believers' claims that 'God exists' or 'God loves us' are unfalsifiable and meaningless.
Explain Karl Popper’s Principle of Falsification
Popper argued that if we consider a proposition to be scientific and meaningful, it must be able to be proven false.
If we know how a proposition could be proven false, then the statement is meaningful.
‘In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.’
Explain how the Principle of Falsification applies to the parable of Gardener
The claim that ‘the clearing of jungle is tended by a gardener’ is meaningless because, with each qualification the explorer who believes there is a gardener is making it impossible for the sceptic to disprove the original assertion.
However, the Principle of Falsification now makes the original assertion meaningless, as the believer was unable to explain what evidence would lead to the falsification of the assertion that there is a gardener.
Explain how Basil Mitchell responds to Flew’s argument
Essentially he disagrees that the problem of evil demonstrates the non- existence of God is a flawed one (which flew argues as the problem of evil means qualifications are added to the nature of god)
Flew’s argument is based on empirical and cognitive evidence.
If we are simply scientific observers of the empirical world, then the problem of evil is a serious (logical and evidential) challenge to religious claims.
However, Mitchell argues that the perspective of the believer is not the perspective of the scientific observer and so the problem of evil isn't an issue for religious claims
Explain the parable of the partisan
In a time of war, a partisan member of the resistance meets a stranger who tells the partisan that he is also in the resistance movement. The partisan becomes completely convinced that the stranger is on our side' and he often sees the stranger helping the resistance. But sometimes the stranger acts against the resistance - this worries the partisan and counts against his belief. The partisan overcomes these trials of faith, however, seeking an explanation for the stranger's apparent betrayals and trusting that the stranger knows best. In this way, the partisan maintains his belief that the stranger is on our side.
Explain Mitchell’s point from the parable of the partisan
For Mitchell the assertion that ‘the stranger is on our side' is a genuine assertion and is falsifiable because the partisan does admit of situations in the world (for example, the stranger's betrayals) that count against this claim.
BUT it is not conclusively falsifiable because the partisan's faith in the stranger remains unshakeable, and will instead commit him to finding an explanation for the apparent counter evidence.
Plus the proposition ‘The stranger is on our side’ cannot simply be shown to be true or false, as the evidence is ambiguous.
The same goes for religious claims.
Mitchell accepts Flew's demand that religious language should consist of genuine assertions (he is a cognitivist).
But unlike Flew, he thinks that it actually does consist of genuine assertions, albeit ones that cannot be conclusively falsified
Illustrate Mitchell’s argument in the form of a syllogism
P1. A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified.
P2. To falsify an assertion means describing things that count against the assertion.
P3. Believers who claim that God loves us recognise that the problem of evil/pain/suffering does count against their assertion.
C1. Therefore 'God loves us' is a genuine assertion.
P4. However, believers will not discard their belief, even if evidence counts against it.
P5. This is because of their faith in God - and they will always commit to finding an explanation for the counter evidence (for example, trying to solve the problem of evil).
C2. Therefore religious statements like 'God loves us' are genuine assertions but not conclusively falsifiable.
Explain Flew’s response to Mitchell
Flew accepts Mitchell is correct in recognising that believers try to explain the problem of evil.
But Flew argues that the problem of evil cannot be solved, and that believers eventually have to qualify their claims that 'God exists' Or 'God loves us'.
Flew regards Mitchell’s argument as flawed as the apparent analogy between the stranger and God fails.
Flew points out that the stranger is a human being, and so it is understandable that we might accept the ambiguity in the behaviour of a human.
But, surely, in the case of God we would not be left wondering what God’s meaning and intentions are.
Explain Hare’s response to Flew
Hare begins with ‘I must begin by confessing that, on the ground marked out by Flew, he seems to me to be completely victorious. I therefore shift my ground by relating another parable.’
Hare puts forward an argument that religious statements can be understood as non-cognitively meaningful, if this is the case then he is also arguing that religious statements must be cognitively meaningless.
Explain the parable of the lunatic
A student struggling with mental ill health is convinced that his university tutors want to murder him. His friends try to convince him this is not true - and they introduce him to the mildest and most respectable tutors. After all these meetings, the friends say, See, this tutor doesn't really want to murder you. But the student suffering from paranoia tells them, This tutor is cunning, and is plotting against me the whole time, just like the rest of them
Explain Hare’s meaning behind the parable of the lunatic
Hare concedes that the paranoid student's claim that 'the tutors want to murder me' fails the test of falsifiability.
There is no behaviour of the tutors which the student will accept as counting against this claim; it is unfalsifiable and is not a genuine assertion.
But Hare is not a cognitivist about these types of unfalsifiable claims.
So Hare then ‘shifts his ground’ by pointing out that the student’s belief is very real to that student. Hare then introduces a new term to describe such a belief: blik.
He argues that a religious assertion can be understood as having meaning, but in a non-cognitive way.
What is a blik?
A blik is a term for this expression of our foundational beliefs/attitudes/way of seeing the student has a deluded blik about his tutors
We all have bliks
Bliks are non-cognitive beliefs that are achieved through virtuous/reliable thinking and we display our bliks through empirically observable actions
So the way we see the world depends on our bliks (e.g. depends on the causal principle being true, even though we cant actually observe causation)
What does Hare demonstrate using bliks?
That there are examples of assertions which cannot be shown to be true or false, but which still have an impact on the world.
Explain Hare’s non-cognitive conclusion about the meaning of religious language
P1. A blik is a foundational approach/attitude that we have to the world, and our beliefs are based on these.
P2. A blik cannot be falsified.
P3. Religious claims like 'God loves us' are expressions of fundamental approaches/attitudes to the world.
P4. Religious claims like 'God loves us' cannot be falsified.
C1. Therefore religious claims like 'God loves us' are not assertions, they are expressions of a blik.
Explain Flew’s response to Hare
Flew argues that believers, when they make statements about God, really are attempting to refer to a being that exists in the world.
Moreover, Hare does not explain how we can distinguish between a 'deluded' blik (like the student's) and a 'right' blik (like his friends).
Flew is critical of the invention of the term blik.
Flew suggests that Hare’s position is ‘fraudulent or silly’ and he exposes the apparent folly of basing our assumptions about how to navigate empirical reality on a belief which might be little more than a misguided belief or a superstition.
Explain Flew’s overall response to non-cognitivists
For Flew language is only meaningful if it is used cognitively.
To claim that language can have meaning which is hidden within layers of context leads to a distortion of the meaning of words.
Flew draws attention to Orwell’s novel, 1984, which was published two years before his debate with Hare and Mitchell.
In the novel, which is set in a future totalitarian state, language is used through propaganda to distort the consciousness of civilians.
In the book members of society are manipulated through language to the extent that the propaganda machine can declare ‘War is peace’.
This corruption of language is known as ‘doublespeak’, and in his final sentence Flew accuses Hare and Mitchell of the same thought-crime.
Note 
Flashcard (135)