Possible Questions
3 Markers
What does Hare mean by the term ‘blik’?
A blik is a worldview, existing logically prior to facts and providing the framework through which we understand them
What does it mean to say that religious statements are verified eschatologically?
If religious statements are verified eschatologically then they are verified once we die e.g. when we go to heaven
What does it mean to say that a person’s religious claim is unfalsifiable?
if a person’s religious claim is unfalsifiable then no amount of evidence will lead to the person giving up that religious claim. For example, the claim ‘God exists’ will be maintained despite all the evidence against the existence of God — the belief is qualified, and is therefore unfalsifiable.
5 Markers
Explain the difference between cognitivism and non cognitivism regarding religious language
Explain how Ayer’s verification principle challenges the status of religious language
Outline Hick’s argument from the celestial city
12 Markers
Outline the verification principle and explain Hick’s claim that religious statements are verifiable estachologically
Explain Mitchell’s view of religious language and how he uses his Partisan parable to illustrate this
Explain Flew’s view on religious language and explain how Hare responds to this using the notion of a ‘blik’
25 Marker - is religious language meaningful?
Statement of Intent: this essay will show that religious language is not meaningful if we interpret it to be making empirical claims, because it can neither be verified or falsified and is rendered meaningless. However, crucially, we can claim that religious language has a specific depth meaning – it is meaningful as a passionate commitment to a surface of reference. Therefore, religious language may have meaning in specific contexts, but the words themselves lack any meaning. This essay will advocate for a non-cognitivist approach to language.
AO1: Cognitivism claims some statements aim to make claims about the world and are therefore propositions which can be given a truth value. Non-cognitivism claims that statements do not aim to make claims about the world and are therefore not propositions and do not have a truth value. This essay argues that religious language is non-cognitivist and cannot be given a truth value. Ayer’s verification principle claims a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable. Ayer distinguishes between two kinds of verification; strong and weak verification. Strong verification is where a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or conclusively verifiable (some finite set of statements directly entail p). Weak verification claims a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic, directly verifiable or indirectly verifiable. Something is directly verifiable if it is directly observable. Something is indirectly verifiable if we cannot currently verify it, but we know in theory what conditions would be needed to ascertain its truth. Another condition for the meaningfulness of language was provided by Flew via the falsification principle. According to Flew, a statement is only meaningful if it can be falsified (shown to be logically impossible) by some set of empirical observations. For example, the claim ‘all swans in white’ could be falsified by the discovery of a black swan.
R – religious language is not meaningful according to the standards established by Ayer’s verification principle (both strong and weak verification). Claims about the existence of God are not analytically verifiable (‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction, and neither is ‘God exists’). There is no conclusive entailment of propositions in religious language such as ‘God exists’, and they are also not indirectly verifiable propositions – there is no way we could even theoretically verify the existence of God
I – Hick and the celestial city: God’s existence (and therefore the meaningfulness of religious language) will be verified eschatologically, once we die
C – Firstly, this objection requires that we will somehow be conscious after we die to verify the existence of God. Furthermore, all Hick has shown is that either heaven exists, and religious language is meaningful, or heaven does not exist, and religious language is not meaningful.
E – If we are using Ayer’s verification principle, then religious language is meaningless. However, Ayer’s verification principle is not the only way to consider whether language is meaningful, and so perhaps it is mistaken to apply this principle
R – religious language is also not meaningful according to the falsification principle: it cannot be falsified. No matter the evidence that God does not exist, religious believers will shift their definitions of God to accommodate new evidence and thus God cannot be falsified (and is therefore meaningless)
I – Mitchell argues that this is a mischaracterization of religious believers; rather, they accept the evidence around God but choose to maintain a belief in God. Illustrated with parable of the partisan
C – But Mitchell is targeting the wrong thing here. He is defending a belief in God despite evidence of evil, etc – what this debate is actually about is whether a belief in God is meaningful at all. The belief itself is not categorically falsifiable, and therefore is meaningless
I – Hare can argue that religious claims are bliks: worldviews which exist logically prior to facts and provide the framework with which these facts are understood. Claims which are not falsifiable still have meaning about the person’s beliefs, mindset etc.
C – this might show that religious language is meaningful, but only in a limited sense e.g. it is still not meaningful about the world, but rather only about people’s mindsets
E – religious language is not meaningful about the world
The best way to understand religious language is through Wittgenstein’s use of surface and depth grammar. Religious language lacks any surface grammar (syntactic forms of expression) but does possess depth grammar in a specific context. On the surface, religious language appears to make empirical claims. These claims that it makes are meaningless – they cannot be verified or falsified, they lack a truth value. However, if we understand religious language as a commitment to a surface or reference, rather than making empirical claims about the world, then religious language does have meaning (but only a specific kind). Religious language is meaningful depending on why you are, but the words themselves aren’t meaningful.