Embedded Files
Religious Language -Unit 4.2 Verification and Falsification
Religious Language -Unit 4.2 Verification and Falsification
Key Words -
Key Words -
Logical Positivism
The Vienna Circle
Verificationism
Falsificationism
Cognitive Language
Non-Cognitive
Category Errors
Eschatological Verification
Bliks
OTHER
analytic
synthetic
meaningless
verification principle
empirical falsification
eschatological verification
RSRev-9_3-centrespread Rel Lang Poster.pdfKey Scholars
Key Scholars
A.J. Ayer (1910CE – 1989CE)
Antony Flew (1923CE – 2010CE)
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889CE – 1951CE)
R.M. Hare (1919CE – 2002CE)
Basil Mitchell (1917CE – 2011CE)
John Hick (1922CE – 2012CE)
Key Texts
Key Texts
God Talk is Evidently Nonsense by A. J. Ayer
Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein
Context
Context
In the twentieth century, philosophers and theologians became increasingly interesting in the use of language and its meaning
One debate in this area was raised by the logical positivist movement and debates if descriptions of God have any meaning at all
The Verification Principal
The Verification Principal
David Hume proclaimed that if a statement did not contain abstract reasoning (like maths) or experimental reasoning (like science) that it said nothing at all. This idea was developed in the 20th Century by the Vienna Circle and philosophers such as A.J. Ayer
A.J. Ayer argued that only two types of sentences have meaning: Analytic sentences (which are true by definition) and variable synthetic sentences (which can be verified by evidence)
However, Ayer argued that when look at religious descriptions of God, they cannot be verified
Strengths
Strengths
The verification principle rightly identifies some meaningless beliefs
Typically, when we make a claim, we want to know that it is true or there are at least reasons to believe it is true – this is in keeping with the logic of the verification principle
EXAMPLE: The belief in a flying spaghetti monster would be meaningless under the verification principle
Weaknesses
Weaknesses
The Verification Principle cannot be verified itself
The verification principle is not a verifiable synthetic statement or an analytic statement and so is meaningless
The Verification Principle makes history meaningless
Statements like Henry VII had 6 wives are no longer verifiable as everyone is dead and so this becomes meaningless
COUNTER-RESPONSE: Ayer put forward “weak verification” for which a statement is meaningful if you can state how you would verify it
John Hick: Eschatological Verification
Hick argues that we can eschatologically verify God when we die and so it is verifiable under weak verification The Falsification Princi
The Falsification Principal
The Falsification Principal
The Verification Principle is seen to have failed and so Antony Flew developed the falsification Principle
Flew argued that for something to have meaning, you must be able to state what would falsify the belief
Furthermore, Flew argued that when you looked at religious claims, often there is nothing that would falsify them as people accept them with unquestioning faith. Therefore, Flew concludes that all religious language is meaningless
Strengths
Strengths
Flew supports his argument with a convincing parable
Flew uses a parable from John Wisdom
PARABLE: two people look at a messy garden and one believes that there is a gardener. Every time the other gives a reason why the gardener doesn’t exist, the first man will qualify their belief (saying the gardener has a reason for weeds)
Flew says this is like religious belief where beliefs qualify their beliefs instead of accepting they have been falsified
Flew concludes “religion dies the death of a thousand qualifications”
Weaknesses
Weaknesses
Richard Swinburne: Lots of unfalsifiable things are still meaningful
Swinburne points out we believe tons of things that we cannot falsify but which we accept as meaningful
EXAMPLE: We all belief that toys don’t come alive in secret
R.M. Hare: Religious Language is a “Blik”
Hare coined the term Bliks to mean statements which an unfalsifiable but which affect our world view
EXAMPLE: Believing someone is trying to kill you when they are not changes the way you behave.
Key arguments/debates
Key arguments/debates
Some suggest that religious language is not just about making factual, ‘truth’ claims, but has numerous functions that verification and falsification neglect.
Other argue that religious believers do try to make cognitive claims about God and so must be subject to the same scrutiny as any other language.
Key Questions
Key Questions
Does religious language mean anything?
Does logical positivism offer a persuasive criterion for meaningful language?
Do religious believers really allow nothing to count against their claims?
Key Quotes
Key Quotes
‘A proposition is said to be verifiable… in the weak sense, if it is possible for experience to render it probable.’ (Ayer)
‘How does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all? (Flew)
Possible Exam Questions
Possible Exam Questions
Section A
Examine ideas about analogical language.
Assess the verification debate with regards to religious language.
Section B
3a Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about falsification in religious language.
3b Analyse the implications for religious language from this passage.
Section C
Evaluate the view that religious language is meaningful is understood correctly.
wjec-u5-t3-b.pdfGoogle Sites
Report abuse