Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE (VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE, FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE,…
-
How we talk about God in a meaningful way if He is transcendent and ineffable and if He means anything at all
Claims that language is only meaningful if it can be verified/checked by a sense observation or tautology
-
VP was influenced by science, which emphasised the importance of confirming statements through observation
Moritz, Schlick and others pointed out the meaningfulness of statements are shown by the method by which you verify the statement
-
-
-
Criticism: Swinburne 'all ravens are black' most people would accept this but it is impossible to check all the ravens in the world
-
Ayer agreed with the VP, argued statements like 'God answers my prayers' are unverifiable and have no factual significance
-
Weak V = Something that has a statement that can be shown to be probable by observation and experience
-
Strong and weak distinction was not real - because the strong form could not apply to any statement and weak was 'far too liberal'
-
directly = statements which records an actual/possible observation, e.g Post boxes are red
Indirectly = statement that is not directly verifiable or analytic, can be checked if other directly verifiable evidence could support it
'In order to say something which may be true, we must say something which may possibly be false' - Hick
Poppers example = Einstein's theory of gravity, astrology was said to be unscientific therefore meaningless but the falsification principle can verify this
Three parables discussed by Flew, Hare and Mitchell were 'the explorers in the jungle', 'the university dons' and 'the partisan'
-
stranger in occupied country, meets a resistance who he impresses. Stranger says on resistance side and urges him to have faith in him, The stranger didn't deceive him and will not be put to the test
This proves believers do accept evidence that counts to disprove their religion/ideas, e.g problem of evil.
-
The strangers behaviour is understandable and explainable - Mitchell suggests this resembles God's apparent actions
-
Flew partly agreed with Mitchell but argued that if you keep questioning a theologian explanations need to be qualified
Criticism: Swinburne argued factual statements can be falsified and some cannot be but this doesn't stop them from being meaningful, e.g his toy cupboard story
Criticism: Ayer rejected ideas behind falsification as statements can't be conclusively falsified any more than one can be verified
Criticism: Religious experience for the person having the experience would be tested to be true by their observation but no one else would be able to test it so how could this be meaningless
Criticisms: Statements can often be meaningful without there being the means to falsify them, e.g. Toys in cupboard. We understand what it means, even tho we can never gather the evidence required to falsify it
Words meaning comes from the context its spoken in
Words perform a function, nor just signify an object
-
-
-
-
-
If we say 'God is good' we cannot understand how good the goodness of God is - understand when we say God is not evil
Idea comes from Plotinus in 2nd century, linking with Platos for of Good (highest form) and that being God
-
-
Criticisms: Flews story of explores suggests that if it cannot clearly be stated what is being talked about how can we be sure there is something to be talked about?
Criticism: Brian Davies says describing what something is not doesn't help you understand what it is. Knowing God is not a wombat doesn't help you come closer to understanding what God is
-
-
He focused on analogies, saying language means something more when applied to God
-
-