Religious Language

Define cognitivism

language that is meaningful if it expresses a belief that can be true or false

Define non-cognitivism

language has a number of uses and can be shown to be meaningful even when its employed to be a state proposition

Outline Ayer’s argument why religious language is not meaningful

P1. The verification principle : all meaningful claims are either analytic or empirically verifiable

P2. ‘ God exists ‘ is not analytic

P3. ‘ God exists ‘ is not empirically verifiable

C1. Therefore ‘ God exists ‘ is not meaningful

What are the 2 criticism of Ayer’s argument

Self Refuting

Religious language is eschatologically verifiable

Outline the criticism that Ayer’s verification principle is self refuting

The verification principle does not apply to itself , fails to be meaningful cannot verify it through experience and its not true by definition

How would Ayer respond to the criticism of self refuting

The verification principle is a non-obvious analytic truth

It’s not obvious like bachelors are unmarried men but non-obvious that if you think and comprehend it that its clear makes sense

Outline the Hick’s criticism that religious language is eschatologically verifiable

Hick’s COGNITIVIST account , they will be verified at the end of life. His story of the two travellers in a celestial city shows that each may take the journey they choose, but on reaching the end of the road will discover whether they reach heaven or not. This will prove their view true or false, but only upon death. Thus religious language is meaningful

Religious statements about God or the afterlife are not true or false but meaningful

Hick is appealing to a sort of verification which we can have no access to in this lifetime. It is not even clear in the absence of sense organs how they would be verified after death.

What kind of theory is the verification principle in relation to religious language ?

Non-cognitivist

What is the definition of eschatological ?

The end of life

How would you start an intro for religious language

Outline religious claims - God is the unmoved , prime mover

Language does not pick out anything we can clearly verify in the world

Philosophers present arguments to show that it is either meaningful or not

define cognitivist or non-cognitivist

Is the statement Donald Trump is part Scottish cognitive or non-cognitive ?

Cognitive

Is the statement fairies live at the bottom of my garden cognitive or non-cognitive ?

Cognitive

Outline the criticism that the verification principle is too strict

Labels meaningless things that are profoundly important such as art

Not straightforwardly verifiable but profoundly meaningful

What does something being falsifiable mean ?

In principle you can prove it wrong

Outline the parable of the invisible gardener

will allow nothing to account against his belief

Theist allows nothing to count aginst their belief in God

Much religous language is therefore meaningless because it it not forsifiable

Outline the argument from falsification

Meaningful statements are falsifiable

Falsifiable means in principle you can prove it wrong

‘ All swans are white ‘ experience one black swan to prove it is wrong rather than having to empirically verify all the swans

Define blik

a perspective or world view which can’t be proved or disproved but is still meaningful to the believer