Twentieth-Century Perspectives

Page 1

Twentieth-Century Perspectives

Cognitive - statements about God that can be known to be either true or false

Non-Cognitive - statements about God aren't subject to truth or falsity

Logical Positivism - movement in philosophy that believed that aim of philosophers should be analysing language, particularly language of science

Verification Principle

Belief that statements are only meaningful if can be verified by senses. There are strong and weak forms of principle generally associated with Vienna circle and Ayer

Supporters of verification principle argued religious statements are meaningless and cannot be empirically checked

Influences on Verification

Empiricism - Hume suggested 2 areas of knowledge. Priori knowledge (relation of ideas) and posteriori knowledge (matter of fact). He rejects metaphysics

Metaphysics is branch of philosophy dealing with nature of reality, things 'beyond' or 'after' physical realm

Focus on language - Wittgenstein said 'philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday' this suggests that focusing on language would provide way forward for philosophers

Vienna Circle

Argued that some statements were meaningful and others weren't

Statement is only meaningful if able to be verified by actual experience

Scientific claims about world are meaningful, but religious and ethical claims, discussion o scientific laws and claims about art and beauty aren't as they cannot be verified

Ayer's Verification

Agreed with Hume and Vienna Circle that metaphysics should be rejected

Ayer argues that for statement to be meaningful, must either be tautology, something true by definition (priori) or something verifiable in principle (posteriori)

Tautology is phrase where something said twice in different words

Verificationism Assessed

Supporting Ayer's Verification Principle

Some philosophers argue that religious and ethical claims are rightly excluded as different to other types of statements

A statement may not be completely provable but can be accepted if could be shown beyond reasonable doubt. This is known as weak verification

Challenging Verification Principle and its Conclusions on Religion

Ayer isn't right to rule out all religious statements. Swinburne noted some religious claims would be verifiable if true

Verification principle fails its own test

It's self-refuting. Claim that 'statements are only meaningful if they're tautologies or verifiable in principle' isn't tautology or verifiable in principle itself

Ayer suggests verification principle isn't statement but theory

Hick and Eschatological Verification

Hick supports verification principle but argues that religious claims are verifiable

He argues religious statements are meaningful eschatologically. It will be possible to verify God's existence

Falsification Symposium

Falsification - principle that statement is genuine scientific assertions if possible to say how it could be disproved empirically

Scientific Background

Karl Popper devised falsification theory as test for what's science and what's theory that's pretending to be science

Popper argues that when scientists make claim, they invite others to test their hypothesis to see if it can be disproved

Theories such as Oedipus complex aren't falsifiable

If it cannot be subject to tests to show how it'd be false, it's not real scientific theory

Flew and The Garden

Problem with religious language is that is cannot be falsified and is consideration that means that religious statements aren't statements at all

One explorer believes there's garners, but other doesn't

'Believer continues to argue that gardener exists but story has now changed: he must be invincible, intangible gardener who works in secret

Flew's Conclusions about Religious Language

Religious claims about world aren't really claims as cannot be tested

Religious claims suffer 'death of thousand qualifications'

Assessing Views Presented in Falsification Symposium

Blik - basic unfalsifiable belief

R.M. Hare

Try's to defend religious belief on ground that Flew misunderstands language involved. Flew is wrong to apply scientific criteria to theological language

Argues we all have basic beliefs that he calls 'bliks'

Some bliks reasonable but others aren't

Religious beef is blik as cannot be empirically tested

Basil Mitchell

Partly accepts Flew's point

Suggests there's evidence that counts for and against belief

Believer doesn't allow evidence to decisively count against belief. This is because they're not detached observer but committed by faith to trust in God

Other Views on Falsification

Hick notes verification and falsification aren't opposites

If religious belief is true, can be verified eschatologically, if false, cannot be shown to be false

Swinburne says statement is meaningful as can understand claim it makes. Critics accuse Swinburne of oversimplifying issue

Wittgenstein and Language Games

Wittgenstein on Language

'Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday'

If philosophical problems are caused by lack of attention to language - aim of philosophy has to be focus on language in order to solve these problems

Wittgenstein notes that meanings of words aren't rigid and fixed. The way words are used are more important. Use of language helps create our perspective of world

Language Games and Religious Language

Wittgenstein argues that language use is like playing gam with rules

He observes religious language and language is different religious groups in itself a language game

Cannot say statement is true in literal sense but fits with Christian interpretation of world

What's True?

Wittgenstein argues that for religious statement, there's not difference of opinion where one viewpoint is right and one wrong, 2 different ways of seeing

Religious statements are meaningful to those within group despite fact statements are not cognitive

Wittgenstein Assessed

Assessing Wittgenstein's Theory of Language

Strengths on Wittgenstein's theory

He recognises that religious and scientific statements are 2 different types of things that deserve to be treated differently

Meaning isn't fixed but changes with use and context

It recognises there are beliefs at we have that are groundless. Cannot provide reasons for them yet they shape our world

Weaknesses of Wittgenstein's theory

believer may reject idea that religious statements only have meaning to individual

Argued that language games are circular. It gives words their meaning, yet game is just collection of words

Comparing Ideas of Aquinas and Wittgenstein

Key Area 1: Does cognitive approach or non-cognitive approach present better way of making sense of religious language?

Religious believers such as Aquinas, understand themselves t speaking cognitively about God

Unlike Aquinas, Wittgenstein seems to suggest that only those 'within game' are able to understand religious language

Key Area 2: How does non-cognitive approach affect interpretation of religious texts?

Non-cognitive approach to scripture would suggest its not historical claim but way of seeing and understanding world

Religious believers interpret some texts symbolically. For some, key to religious test isn't their literal truth but function within faith communities

Aquinas sees texts cognitively; they make claims that are true in reality

Key Area 3: How far does Aquinas' analogical view of theological language remain valuable in philosophy of religion?

Still used within Christianity and offer some insight into nature of God without reducing God to human level