20th century perspectives + philosophical comparisons

AO1 – Knowledge (1–18)

  1. What is logical positivism?

  2. What did the Vienna Circle believe about philosophers, theologians, and language?

  3. What are analytic statements?

  4. What are synthetic statements?

  5. What is the strong verification principle?

  6. What did A.J. Ayer say about God’s existence?

  7. What is the problem with the strong verification principle?

  8. What is the weak verification principle according to A.J. Ayer?

  9. What is direct verification?

  10. What is indirect verification?

  11. Why did Ayer think the verification principle was successful?

  12. How does the weak verification principle allow some statements to be meaningful?

  13. What criticisms did John Hick make of the verification principle?

  14. How did Richard Swinburne criticise the verification principle?

  15. What did Vincent Brummer argue about science and religious statements?

  16. How did Karl Popper criticise verificationism in science?

  17. What is the falsification principle?

  18. How did Anthony Flew illustrate falsification using “all swans are white”?

AO2 – Evaluation (19–30)

  1. How did Brian Davies and Flew critique God-talk using falsification?

  2. What is the parable of the gardener?

  3. How does Flew interpret the parable of the gardener?

  4. How does RM Hare respond to the falsification principle with his ‘blik’ theory?

  5. How did Basil Mitchell challenge Flew’s approach to religious statements?

  6. What is John Hick’s idea of eschatological verification?

  7. Why does Flew present a more convincing approach than Hare or Mitchell?

  8. Why might Flew not be more convincing than Hare or Mitchell?

  9. What did Wittgenstein say about the purpose of language?

  10. How did Wittgenstein critique the verification principle in religious language?

  11. What is a “language game” according to Wittgenstein?

  12. How do cognitivist and non-cognitivist approaches differ in understanding religious language?

AO1 – Knowledge

  1. A movement which asserted only statements verifiable through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful.

  2. Philosophers and theologians often speak nonsense, and sentences are factually meaningful only if truth or falsity can be checked; the Vienna Circle aimed to free people from meaningless chatter using science.

  3. True by definition.

  4. Statements whose truth or falsity can be checked through experience or observation.

  5. Statements about the world are only meaningful if their truth or falsity can be verified by experience or observation.

  6. The term ‘God’ is metaphysical, so its existence cannot be empirically verified, making it meaningless.

  7. It unfairly rejects many statements that are clearly meaningful but not conclusively verifiable.

  8. Statements about the world are meaningful if it is possible in principle to gather evidence to support them.

  9. A statement that is verifiable directly by observation.

  10. A statement that is verifiable indirectly if supported by direct evidence.

  11. It offers clear criteria for meaningful statements and applies equally to religion and other forms of meaningless claims.

  12. If evidence could, in principle, verify a statement, it can be considered meaningful, such as historical or scientific claims.

  13. God-talk is meaningful because its truth could be verified in principle, even if not presently.

  14. The strong verification principle cannot meaningfully account for historical knowledge, as past events cannot be directly observed.

  15. Not all aspects of reality can be measured or captured scientifically, so dismissing non-scientific claims is flawed.

  16. Science itself would fail if meaning depended on verification, as general laws cannot be fully verified.

  17. Statements about the world are credible only if it is possible to specify what evidence would make them false.

  18. “All swans are white” is credible because it can be falsified by observing a non-white swan.

AO2 – Evaluation

  1. Religious believers qualify claims to avoid falsification, making statements like “God loves all humans” effectively meaningless.

  2. Two men interpret a neglected garden differently, one believing in a gardener and one not, despite seeing the same evidence.

  3. The gardener claim loses credibility because it cannot be falsified; religious statements similarly die “by a thousand qualifications.”

  4. Unfalsifiable beliefs can still be meaningful as fundamental attitudes or ‘bliks’ that guide actions.

  5. Religious belief can be fact-based yet maintained despite contrary evidence, grounded in faith and reason.

  6. Religious claims will be verified at the end of time, e.g., the Celestial City illustrates possible eschatological verification.

  7. Flew presents a convincing approach because religious believers avoid falsification and their statements lack credibility.

  8. Flew may not be more convincing because Hare, Mitchell, and Hick show unfalsifiable or non-empirical beliefs can still be meaningful.

  9. Language enables people to live a particular form of life and words get meaning from the context they are used in.

  10. A religious statement is meaningful to a believer in that language game, but meaningless to someone outside it.

  11. A “language game” is the context in which language is used, giving words meaning according to their role in that form of life.

  12. Cognitivists see religious claims as factual statements about reality, while non-cognitivists see them as expressions of attitudes, faith, or commitments.