ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Religious Language

?Download as PPTX, PDF?
?
E
EllenLesser

The document discusses verificationism and its application to religious language. It presents several arguments: 1) According to verificationism, religious claims like "God exists" are meaningless because they cannot be empirically verified or falsified. 2) However, some argue religious claims can be meaningful if God's existence can be empirically verified through things like design in nature or religious experiences. 3) Others counter that religious language may be subjectively meaningful due to personal faith even if claims can't be objectively falsified. Verificationism may not apply to all meaningful statements.

1 of 12
Download to read offline
Religious Language
? Red writing ¨C names of philosophers ? Green writing ¨C examples/illustrations ? Blue writing ¨C key words/phrases ? Purple writing ¨C evaluation points
Religious Language
? A claim is meaningful if either it can be empirically verified or if it is analytic. ? In other words, a claim is meaningful if: ? We can use our senses to determine its truthfulness (empirical verification) ? Or, if the claim is true because of the meanings of the words (analytic) ? Therefore, according to verificationism, all religious language e.g. ¡®God exists¡¯ is meaningless.
? A claim is meaningful if it can be empirically verified or empirically falsified. ? Religious language is not (theoretically) falsifiable, and therefore it is meaningless. ? The Parable of the Gardener shows that, as there is no piece of empirical evidence that will force the believer to say that they were wrong about the truthfulness of the claim ¡®God exists¡¯, that it is not falsifiable, and therefore meaningless. ? HOWEVER there are claims which are not falsifiable and which are indubitable, for example the claim ¡®I am female¡¯; this cannot be falsified, and yet is not meaningless.
Religious Language
? When you try and apply the principle to itself, it is found to be meaningless itself. ? The principle also makes moral statements meaningless as well.
? It is the case that we can empirically verify the existence of God. ? We can use the mathematical consistency of Creation to verify the existence of the Creator (William Paley¡¯s watch). ? You can also use the Problem of Evil to empirically falsify the existence of God. ? Thus, talk of God can still be considered meaningful.
? We cannot know in this life whether or not God exists, but our talk of God is either falsified or verified in the afterlife. ? Because of this, it is meaningful. ? HOWEVER we could argue against this point with the idea that we may not stay the same people after death, if there is indeed an afterlife.
? We can verify the existence of God in this life due to religious experiences. ? HOWEVER this can be countered with Hume¡¯s problems of testimony (misremembering, lying, lack of scientific advancement etc.) and Russell¡¯s argument of the unusual mental or physical state (drunk man seeing snakes).
? The paranoid student¡¯s claim that all dons want to kill him is both meaningful to him, and not falsifiable to him. ? Thus, there are statements which can be subjectively meaningful, because they are not falsifiable subjectively. ? Thus, a person¡¯s subjective faith is not falsifiable, and is subjectively meaningful.
? The Parable of the Resistance Leader shows that the claim ¡®God exists¡¯ can be made meaningful in accordance with both Ayer¡¯s verificationism and Flew¡¯s falsification. ? The individual¡¯s belief that the stranger is on their side is falsifiable, because the individual has seen them act contrary to the behaviour of one who is on their side. ? Yet it is also verifiable, as the individual has seen the stranger act in accordance with the behaviour of one who is on their side. ? Therefore, it can be both verified and falsified, and is meaningful to both Ayer and Flew.

More Related Content

Religious Language

  • 2. ? Red writing ¨C names of philosophers ? Green writing ¨C examples/illustrations ? Blue writing ¨C key words/phrases ? Purple writing ¨C evaluation points
  • 4. ? A claim is meaningful if either it can be empirically verified or if it is analytic. ? In other words, a claim is meaningful if: ? We can use our senses to determine its truthfulness (empirical verification) ? Or, if the claim is true because of the meanings of the words (analytic) ? Therefore, according to verificationism, all religious language e.g. ¡®God exists¡¯ is meaningless.
  • 5. ? A claim is meaningful if it can be empirically verified or empirically falsified. ? Religious language is not (theoretically) falsifiable, and therefore it is meaningless. ? The Parable of the Gardener shows that, as there is no piece of empirical evidence that will force the believer to say that they were wrong about the truthfulness of the claim ¡®God exists¡¯, that it is not falsifiable, and therefore meaningless. ? HOWEVER there are claims which are not falsifiable and which are indubitable, for example the claim ¡®I am female¡¯; this cannot be falsified, and yet is not meaningless.
  • 7. ? When you try and apply the principle to itself, it is found to be meaningless itself. ? The principle also makes moral statements meaningless as well.
  • 8. ? It is the case that we can empirically verify the existence of God. ? We can use the mathematical consistency of Creation to verify the existence of the Creator (William Paley¡¯s watch). ? You can also use the Problem of Evil to empirically falsify the existence of God. ? Thus, talk of God can still be considered meaningful.
  • 9. ? We cannot know in this life whether or not God exists, but our talk of God is either falsified or verified in the afterlife. ? Because of this, it is meaningful. ? HOWEVER we could argue against this point with the idea that we may not stay the same people after death, if there is indeed an afterlife.
  • 10. ? We can verify the existence of God in this life due to religious experiences. ? HOWEVER this can be countered with Hume¡¯s problems of testimony (misremembering, lying, lack of scientific advancement etc.) and Russell¡¯s argument of the unusual mental or physical state (drunk man seeing snakes).
  • 11. ? The paranoid student¡¯s claim that all dons want to kill him is both meaningful to him, and not falsifiable to him. ? Thus, there are statements which can be subjectively meaningful, because they are not falsifiable subjectively. ? Thus, a person¡¯s subjective faith is not falsifiable, and is subjectively meaningful.
  • 12. ? The Parable of the Resistance Leader shows that the claim ¡®God exists¡¯ can be made meaningful in accordance with both Ayer¡¯s verificationism and Flew¡¯s falsification. ? The individual¡¯s belief that the stranger is on their side is falsifiable, because the individual has seen them act contrary to the behaviour of one who is on their side. ? Yet it is also verifiable, as the individual has seen the stranger act in accordance with the behaviour of one who is on their side. ? Therefore, it can be both verified and falsified, and is meaningful to both Ayer and Flew.