Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE - Coggle Diagram
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
THE VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE [AYER]
Ayer agues that statements such as 'God exists' are not analytic truths, and aren't empirically verifiable or falsifiable
therefore according to his verifications, religious language is meaningless
a statement is only factually significant if it can IN PRINCIPLE be empirically verified
a statement only has meaning if its either:
an analytic truth
-empirically verifiable (synthetic)
WEAK VERIFICTION PRINCIPLE
Recognising the rigidity of the original verification principle, Ayer developed a weaker form
states that In order to be meaningful, a statement may not be verifiable but instead can be shown to be true within reasonable doubt
this means we can make statements about history, scientific theories and human emotions but not religion and ethics
STRENGTHS
The VP is in line with science and the scientific method since it demands we observe the world empirically
Its straightforward in what it demands- meaningful statements are either true by definition or verifiable by sense experience
it brackets all questions of emotion, concentrating only on facts
CRITICISMS
Even though its straightforward, it doesn't mean that its right
it rules out all sorts of language as being meaningless , including statements about ancient history
yet how many people actually see these as meaningless?
Ayers verification principle fails its own test
his claim that 'a statement is only meaningful if its analytic or empirically verifiable', is neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable itself
its therefore meaningless and cannot be used to comment on the meaningfulness of religious language
To say the VP is in line with science has a number of problems:
1) science deals mostly with entities that cannot directly be observe
2) science doesnt work exclusively through verification, it works primarily through falsification
THE FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE [FLEW]
For language to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable- if there is some form of evidence that could falsify it/prove it wrong
PARABLE OF
THE GARDENER
2 explorers find a clearing in a jungle, where both weeds and flowers grow
Explorer A says the clearing is the work of a Gardner, Explorer B disagrees
To settle the argument they keep watch for the gardener
They sit and wait but no Gardner appears however they try to detect him
Explorer A says the Gardner is invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable
In other words, Explorer A's theory is unfalsifiable- nothing could prove it wrong or or correct
Therefore his theory is meaningless
Flew is arguing that 'god exists' is meaningless because its unfalsifiable in the same way the existence of the invisible Gardner is unfalsifiable
Flew gives the following analogy in an attempt to show that religious language- in particular the statement 'god exists'- is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless
STRENGTHS
where religion makes factual important facts claims e.g 'there is a god', Flew shows these claims are empty because all evidence against such claims are ignored by the believer
they cease to be real assertions because they 'die the death of a thousand qualifications
WEAKNESSES
religious belief is actually falsifiable
St Paul claims that if Jesus' body was discovered then belief and faith in christianity would be pointless
This suggests Flew is incorrect to think religious language is always unfalsifiable as there are at least some believers whose beliefs are incompatible with some logically possible state of affair
This would show that Pauls religious language would pass flews test of falsification and so would be meaningful
the falsification principle cannot be falsifies- therefore it'd meaningless