Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Twentieth-century Perspectives - Coggle Diagram
Twentieth-century Perspectives
the verification principle
supporters of the verification principle argued that religious statements are meaningless as the cannot be empirically checked
it is the simple belief that statements are only meaningful is they can be verified by the senses
influences on verificationism
empiricism - thinkers such as Hume suggested two areas of knowledge - a priori and a posteriori - Hume rejects metaphysics including discussion of god as it can be neither of the above
focus on language - Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said that 'philosophical problems occur when language goes on holiday' and 'whereof one cannot speak one must remain silent' - these quotes suggested that focusing on language would provide a way forward for philosophers
the vienna circle
the vienna circle was a group of philosophers who met in the 1920s and 1930s
they argued that some statements were meaningful and others were not
in order to identify the difference they came up with the verification principle
this stated that a statement is only meaningful if it is able to be verified by an actual experience
this means that scientific claims about the world are meaningful but religious and ethical claims are not
however as well as religious and ethical statements this form of the verification principle seems to rule out discussion of a number of areas that cannot be verified
these include historical statements, discussion of scientific laws and claims about art or beauty
Ayers verificationism
AJ Ayer accepted the basic idea behind the verification principle - he agreed with Hume and the vienna circle that metaphysics should be rejected
Ayer argues that for a statement to be meaningful it must be either a tautology (something that is true by definition) or something that is verifiable in principle (a posteriori)
it is the verifiable in principle that distinguishes Ayer from the vienna circle
we are not required to conclusively prove something by direct observation - we merely have to be able to say how it would be possible to verify it
Ayer uses the example 'there are mountains on the far side of the moon' - which at the time of his writing could not be conclusively verified - nevertheless it is a meaningful statement as if we were to orbit the moon we would be able to verify this claim
the verification principle - assesing
supporting
Ayer can be seen as offering a significant improvement on the very limited verification principle given by the vienna circle - this widens what is meaningful to discussions of historical claims and scientific laws
some philosophers argue that religious and ethical claims are rightly excluded as they are different to other types of statements
Ayer also softens the demand for absolute verification of a statement - a statement may not be completely provable but can be accepted if it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt - this is known as weak verification
challenging
the stronger form of verification put forward by the vienna circle has been criticised as too rigid - it seems absurd that claims about Julius Caesar coming to britain might be classed as meaningless
it seems that there is agreement in ethics over what is good and to some extent there is agreement by artists regarding what is or isnt beautiful - it is not apparent that ethics and art are meaningless
Ayer is not right to rule out all religious statements - Swinburne has noted that some religious claims such as the resurrection of jesus would be verifiable if true
the verification principle fails its own test - it is self refuting - the claim that statements are only meaningful if they are tautologies or verifiable in principle itself - ayer responded to this challenge by suggesting that the verification principle is not a statement but a theory so does not need to pass the test
Hick and eschatological verification
one famous challenge to ayers rejection of religious statements comes from john hick
hick supports the verification principle but argues that religious claims are verifiable
he uses a parable of two travellers on a road - the travellers argue about whether the road leads to the celestial city or whether it just ends
when they turn the final corner of the road and the celestial city is there one of them will be proved right
hick is arguing that religious statements are meaningful eschatologically
at the end of all things it will be possible to verify gods existence
the falsification symposium
the principle that a statement is a genuine scientific assertion if it is possible to say how it could be disproved emprically
the scientific background
Karl Popper devised the falsification theory as a test for what is science and what is merely pseudo science - Popper argues that when scientists make a claim they invite others to test their hypothesis to see if it can be disproved - whether i claim water boils at 100 degrees or whether i claim that it turns into jam at -10 degrees either way those claims are testable and if they were false you could show them to be false
Popper uses this to criticise Freuds psychology - theories such as the oedipus complex are not falsifiable - Poppers point is that if it cannot be subject to tests that would show how it could be false then this is not a real scientific theory - it is just pseudo science
Flew and the garden
Anthony Flew applied his principle to the use of religious language - the problem with religious language is that it cannot be falsified and it is this consideration that means that religious statements are not statements at all
he illustrates this with a story adapted from john wisdom of the explorers finding what seems to be a garden - one explorer believes that there is a gardener the other does not - as the wait and watch, they set up trip wires and use dogs to sniff out the gardener - no gardener is found - the believer continues to argue that the gardener exists but the story has now changed - he must be an invisible, intangible gardener who works in secret
conclusions
religious claims about the world arent really claims at all as they cannot be tested
when challenged the believer waters down their claim - they shift the goalposts so much that they are not saying anything at all - flew states that religious claims suffer 'the death by a thousand qualifications'
e.g. 'god loves people' changes to 'god loves people but allows freewill, develops character, does not intervene, has a bigger plan and moves in mysterious ways' - flew would ask how this would differ from there being no god at all - what would have to happen in order for god to be disproved?
Wittgenstein - assessing
strengths
Wittgenstein recognises that religious and scientific statements are two different types of things that deserve to be treated differently
the theory recognises that meaning is not fixed but changes with use and context
it recognises that there are beliefs that we have that are groundless - we cannot necessarily provide reasons for them yet they shape our world
weaknesses
a believer may reject the idea that religious statements only have meaning to the individual - the may see them as truth claims - they believe themselves to be making cognitive statements
it has been argued that language games are circular - the language game gives words their meaning yet the game itself is just a collection of words
critics claim Wittgenstein over analyses language - he 'takes apart a perfectly working clock and then wonders why it doesnt work' Gellner
comparing aquinas and wittgenstein
does a cognitive approach or a non cognitive approach present a better way of making sense of religious language?
religious believers such as aquinas understand themselves to be speaking cognitively about god
ayer and flew have challenged the cognitive view - wittgenstein recognises that this is a challenge that has to be answered
unlike aquinas wittgenstein seems to suggest that only those 'within the game' are able to understand religious language
how does a non cognitive approach affect the interpretation of religious text?
a non cognitve approach to scripture would suggest he jesus rose from the dead is not a historical claim but is a way of seeing and understanding the world - for some christians this type of approach is a step too far and weakens key elements of christianity
religious believers do interpret some texts symbolically - few believe that the genesis accounts of creation are literal truths - for some the key religious texts is not their literal truth but their function within faith communities - wittgenstein may well have supported such a view
aquinas' own view of scripture is very different to scholars who take a critical view of biblical texts - aquinas sees texts cognitively - they make claims that are true in reality
how far does aquinas' analogical view of theological language remain valuable in philosophy of religion?
on a practical level aquinas' approach is still used within christianity and offers some insight into the nature of god without reducing god to a human level
the discussion goes beyond language to some degree and perspectives on this question may be driven by beliefs about scripture and the relative importance of reason and revelation
falsification symposium - assessing
RM Hare
a lunatic is convinced that all the dons at the uni want to kill him - his friends arrange for him to meet the kindest don they can find - however this doesnt convince him - the lunatic replies this just shows how cunning the dons are - they are trying to lull him into a false sense of security
Hare is trying to defend religious belief on the grounds that Flew misunderstands the language involved - Flew is wrong to apply scientific criteria to theological language
Hare argues that we all have basic beliefs that he calls 'bliks' (a basic unfalsifiable belief) - some bliks are reasonable but others are not - religious belief is a blik and as such it cannot be empirically tested
Hare is influenced by Wittgensteins language games - if Hare is right that religious belief is not scientific then this allows religious statements to have meaning to the individual - the challenge flew makes fails
this may seem inadequate as believers claiming that 'god loves us' are not just claiming a subjective truth - they believe themselves to be aking a claim about reality as a whole
Basil Mitchell
in a war torn country a partisan meets a stranger who persuades him that he is the secret commander of the resistance despite sometimes working undercover - afterwards the stranger sometimes helps but is also often seen in the uniform of the opposition handing over resistance fighters - when challenged the partisan says 'the stranger knows best'
Mitchell partly accepts Flews point - he suggests that there is evidence that counts for and against belief - the believer recognises that the problem of evil is problem - however the believer does not allow the evidence to decisively count against belief - this is because he is not a detached observer but is committed by faith to trust in god
MItchell recognises the role of evidence in a way that Hare does not - if the believer is like Hares lunatic then evidence is irrelevant - Mitchell rejects the idea that religious beliefs are bliks
mitchell supports Flews idea that religious statements are assertions or claims but unlike Flew sees a genuine role for faith
other views
john hick prefers verification to falsification as test of religious statements - he notes that the two ideas are not opposites - if religious belief is true it can be verified eschatologically yet if it is false it cannot be shown to be false - hence verification is a better test
richard swinburne has also questioned whether verification or falsification is the correct test for religious statements - he uses an illustration of toys in the cupboard coming alive at night when no one is watching them - although it is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable statement it is meaningful as we can understand the claim it makes - however critics accuse Swinburne of oversimplifying the issue
Wittgenstein and language games
'philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday' - many of the problems that philosophers have wrestled with have been caused by a failure to pay attention to language
'what is your aim in philosophy? to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle' - if philosophical problems are caused by a lack of attention to language, and this traps the philosopher, then the aim of philosophy has to be to focus on language in order to solve these problems
'dont ask for the meaning ask for the use' - wittgenstein notes that the meaning of words are not rigid and fixed - what is more important is how a word is used
language games and religious language
Wittgenstein argues that language use is like playing a game with rules - within our groups we have agreed rules about how words are used - if we were to point at a chair and say the word hamster then the person we are speaking to would correct us just like someone would do if we moved a chess piece incorrectly
Wittgenstein observes that religious language and the language of different religious groups is in itself a language game
if we ere to say that gods allows suffering to develop our character and we will be rewarded in heaven, we cannot say the statements is true in a literal sense but it fits with a christian interpretation of the world
it is not a statement that fits within the atheistic or hindu language games
to suggest that the best explanation of evil is that god does not exist would not fit within the rules of the game
it would be rather like a swimmer choosing to use a boat in an olympic race
it is not within the rules of the game
what is true?
essentially wittgenstein argues that for the religious statement there is not a difference of opinion where one viewpoint is right and one is wrong there are actually two different ways of seeing
one way of thinking about this is the famou sduck-rabbit illustration
the person who claims it is a duck and the person who claims it is a rabbit see the illustration differently
this leaves the question of the truth of religious language unresolved in terms of verifying or falsifying what is said - it also broadens the debate - religious statements are meaningful to those within the group despite the fact that the statements are not cognitive