4. Evaluate the view ‘Words must have a verifiable connection to empirical reality to be meaningful’. (30)
4. Evaluate the extent to which Wittgenstein's language game theory defends religious language from the attacks of the Vienna Circle. (30)
4 Evaluate the extent to which language games provide a suitable way of resolving the problems of Religious Language. (30)
4 Evaluate the extent to which a functional rather than pictorial approach to religious language is more successful. (30)
4 Evaluate the view that a non-cognitive interpretation of language and criteria of coherence in religious language is the best approach. (30)
4 Evaluate the claim that ‘Religious language should be viewed non-cognitively.' (30)
4 Evaluate the the effectiveness of the terms form of life, non-cognitive, and criteria of coherence as solutions to the problems of religious language.' (30)
4 Evaluate the extent to which the language games concept successfully makes sense of religious language. (30)
4 Evaluate the claim that only a non-cognitive criteria of coherence makes sense of the distinctive nature of religious language. (30)
4 Evaluate DZ Philips claim that 'language games allows religious language to be meaningful.' (30)
4 Evaluate the opinion the strengths and weakness of the claim that relation language is 'a social practice with its own rules and conventions'. (30)
4 Evaluate the importance of the the claim by Philips 'The religious use of language is not about conveying information, but about expressing and sharing a particular way of life.' (30)
4 Evaluate the opinion that the use of Wittgenstein’ language games for religious language raises very difficult if not impossible problems". (30)
4. Evaluate the meaning and significance of the claim by Phillips 'Language is not a neutral tool for communication, but is shaped by our beliefs, values, and cultural traditions.' (30)
4 Evaluate the implications of the view ‘language game theory does not allow any philosophical debate to take place.’ (30)