What issue does RL try to solve
- Need to talk about God in a Meaningful way
- Hard to use finite language to describe an infinite divine being
- God is transcendent beyond our understanding, can we talk meaningfully about him.
What defines Religious Language 2
- 20th Century Thinks
- Verification - A.J. Ayer
- Falsification - Anthony Flew, Karl Popper
–> Bliks - R.M. Hare + Basil Mitchell - Language Games - Wittgenstein
- Logical Positivism
Cognitive vs. Non-Cognitive Statements
Cognitive
- True or False
- Express literal propositions e.g. Triangles have 3 sides
Non-Cognitive
- Not factual
- Not literal propositions, Can be metaphorical, poetic etc.
e.g. That Hurt / G&L is the best school
What is Humes Fork?
Separation of statements proved through Logic
–> A Priori , Analytic, Necessary
From Statements proved through observation / sense experience
–> A Posteriori, Synthetic, Contingent
Analytic vs Synthetic Statements
Analytic
- Propositions true by definition
- e.g. Bachelors are single
Synthetic
- Goes beyond just defining use of words
e.g. all Bachelors live alone –> living alone is not in definition of Bachelor
Necessary Vs. Contingent Truth
Necessary truth - thing that must be true
Contingent Truth - happens to be true, it possible that it isn’t true
Connotate Vs. Denote
Denotation - word standing for something as a label e.g. window as a hole in the wall, clear literal meaning
Connotation - word carries other associations e.g. window as an opportunity
- meaning beyond literal sense, can mean different things to different people + convey an unintended meaning
What is Verification? + What does the Scholar say?
- By A.J. Ayer
- Language tells us something about the world and reality
- Claims are only meaningful if they can be proven true or false
- Verification Principle = “a statements which cannot be conclusively verified … is devoid of meaning”
–> e.g. Cognitive statements. = meaningful, Non-Cognitive = not
–> Analytical statements = meaningful
–> Synthetic = meaningless - Religious claims are Synthetic –> doesn’t mean all false, but all meaningless
- Weak Verification Principle
–> response to claim cant prove everything in history happened
–> don’t have to personally verify all things, need sensible standards e.g. witness accounts, multiple sources
Criticisms of Verification?
- Cant verify verification principle (circular argument)
- Lots of what we take as knowledge defies strict verification
–> weak verification argument as response - Hick - God may be verifiable in future –> e.g. Final judgement implies we will see + Know God
- Swinburn - Are Statements we cannot verify that still have meaning
–> e.g. all swans are white, possibility of black swan, (strong verification bad)
Who are Logical Positivists + what do they claim?
- Claim for language to be meaningful should be capable of being tested through five senses e.g. empirical evidence
‘unenlightened’ vs ‘positivst’ age
- Unenlightened = theological interpretations of events, God sued as explanation for things not yet known
- Positivist = growing understanding of science, people abandon old-fashion thinking - tested empirically + scientifically
- A.J. Ayer agreed
What is Falsification + main Scholars?
Scholars
- Karl Popper
- Anthony Flew - Wisdom’s Parable of Gardener
- Hare’s Blik’s + Mitchells response
- In order for statements to have meaning must be capable of being proved wrong / falsified
Who is Flew + what does he say
Anthony Flew on Falsification
- About asserting something and knowing what evidence counts against it / knowing what would prove it wrong
- Problem with ‘God talk’ states things that can never be falsified
–> no matter what evidence presented otherwise, never accept wrongness
Flew - Wisdom’s Parable of the Garden
- 2 explores at clearing, one explorer thinks there a gardener, one doesn’t
- set up tests to Prove gardener; look for one, cant see one gardener invisible
- Bloodhounds don’t bark, gardner must not have scent etc.
–> explorer changes argument when test disproves theory, unable to falsify –> not valid argument
–> cant say what logically possible state will disprove god
–> Religious language meaningless
What are Blik’s + Scholars?
Falsification
Hare developed Blik’s
- blik = non-rational belief that could never be falsified
- Not necessarily untrue (some sane, some logical) but are groundless
–> e.g. Oxford student who believes dons are trying to kill him.
- Disagree with Verification + falsification
–> both depend on RL failing in attempts to describe reality
- RL is not reality but a non-cognitive expression of a blik
–> Bliks affect behaviours + beliefs = meaningful
Basil Mitchell
- Parable of leader of resistance
–> understand + see evidence against what they believe but still choose to trust despite this
- Statements to be true must be falsifiable
–> e.g. can accept Evil as evidence against God without stopping belief in God
- Religious Belies are not scientific statements or beliefs maintain irrationally despite evidence
- ‘Significant articles of faith’ believer invested so doesn’t stop believing at minor evidence but would at overwhelming evidence.
Quickly summarise beliefs of Main Scholars
- Ayer - Verification - RL non-cognitive + Synthetic –> may be meaningful but not the truth
- Flew - Falsification - RL Meaningless
–> not able to say what would disprove - wisdoms parable of gardener - Hare - Falsification - bliks - RL meaningful as effects behaviour + beliefs even if not reality
- Mitchell - Falsification - bliks - RL meaningful
–> can accept evidence whilst maintaining belief
–> parable of resistance leader
Explain Wittgenstein’s beliefs on RL?
Language Games
- Language works through series of ‘language games’
–> meaning of language depends on use / context
–> words have no objective reference point
- Need to be part of game to question meaning
–> otherwise like football referee penalising rugby player for picking up ball
Surface vs depth grammar
- e.g. of how words mean dif things in dif context e.g. i love cake, God loves me
Problem’s in Philosophy occur through misunderstanding words use in different games
4 Thought experiments
1. Private Language Argument
2. Beetle in Box
3. Family resemblance
4. Builders and foundations
What are Wittgenstein’s thought experiments
- Private Language Argument
–> Challenges language only one person can understand
–> meaningful language relies on shared conventions + pracitises - Beetle in Box
–> everyone has beetle in box, never see eachothers beetles, not sure if everyones is the same
–> limits of linguistic communication - Family resemblance
–> concepts like game or language do not have single defining characteristics, but overlapping similarities like family resmblance. - Builders and foundations
–> Langauge doesn’t have strict framework,
–> is a toolbox , dif tools for different purpose
Critiques of Language Games
- Too subjective / relativistic
–> all claims equally valid
–> doesn’t explain how to challenge truth claims - Language is not objective
–> Wittgenstein rejects view language can be objective + scientific
–> Language can never convey absolute truth - No progress in Philosophical debate
–> Philosophical debates based on misunderstandings of language - Believers require no justification
–> Can lead to irrationalism + blind faith
–> could be used to justify extremism - Contradicts Religious beliefs
–> Believers use Rl to convey truths, believe RL is factual and based on empirical evidence
