Religious language

These flashcards cover all content for religious language

What category is religious language said to be?

• Some argue that religious language is non-cognitive

What does non-cognitive mean?

• It means that the statement is neither true or false

• It’s simply just an expression

What is verification?

• Only statements that can be verified are meaningful

What is falsificationism?

• Only statements that can (in principle) be falsified are meaningful

What is the verification principle?

• The principle that believes that a statement only has meaning if it’s either

• An analytic truth or empirically verifiable

What does Ayer say about statements such as ‘God exists’?

• He says that those statements are not analytic truths

Does Ayer believe that religious language is meaningful or meaningless?

• It’s meaningless

What response can be given to Ayer’s VP?

• His VP fails his own test

How does Ayer’s VP fail it’s own test?

• His claim that ‘a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable’ is neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable

• Therefore the VP is meaningless

What type of statements are unfalsifiable statements?

• Meaningless - because they are not capable of being true or false

How does a statement become falsifiable?

• It’s falsifiable if its inconsistent with some possible observation

• There has to be evidence that could count against that statement

What analogy did Flew create to show that religious language is unfalsifiable?

• He created the invisible gardener analogy

What does Flew argue about the statement ‘God exists’?

• He argues that this statement is meaningless

What does Flew believe about the religious believer’s hypothesis?

• It’s unfalsifiable and meaningless

What does Hick’s eschatological verification mean?

• A statement that can be verified after death, or at the end of time

What view does Hick believe that Ayer also believes?

• The statement ‘God exists’ is not empirically verifiable in this life

What does Hick argue about religious claims?

• He argues that many religious claims are about things beyond the limits of human life

According to Hick, are religious claims meaningful or not meaningful?

• He argues that they are meaningful because it is very possible to verify them after we die

How does Hick illustrate his view on religious claims?

• Hick uses the parable of a ‘celestial city’

Contrasting to the VP, what does Hick believe about the statement ‘God exists’?

• He argues that this statement is verifiable (Eschatologically)

How does Mitchell agree with Flew?

• He agrees with Flew that in order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be possible for some observation to count against this

What does Mitchell point out about observations?

• There are some observations that count against a certain belief

What does Mitchell argue with this analogy?

• We can accept the existence of evil counts as evidence against the statement ‘God exists’ without having to withdraw from belief in the statement

What does he argue about religious beliefs?

• He argues that religious beliefs are not ‘provisional hypotheses’ like scientific statements that the believer is detached from

What is Mitchell’s final argument?

• We can accept that the existence of evil counts as evidence against God’s existence

• ‘God exists’ is falsifiable and meaningful without withdrawing belief in God