Is religious language meaningful?

Is religious language meaningful?

1. Philosophical concepts of verification and falsification

   • varification
     • must be proven true of false by evidence
     • analytic: true or false by definition
       • (1+1=2)
     • synthetic: true or false by research
       • (Peter has brown eyes)
     • Hume
     • Ayer
       • If it is not analytic and cannot be tested, then best to call it (cognitively) meaningless
     • strong varification
       • can be verified in practice
         • problems
           • cant verify this the whole world needs to drink to survive because you cannot test every person
     • weak verification
       • can be verified in principle
         • 'Mary Queen of Scots had three husbands'
   • falsification
     • Popper
       • if a statement can be falsified then it is meaningful
         • (all swans are white)
     • Flew
       • Wisdom's parable of the gardener
         • look at the bad and you will assume there is no God (the gardener) but if you look at the good then you may believe there is a God
         • Flew
           • How does this invisible, imaginary gardener differ from no gardener at all

2. concepts

   • symbolic
     • flag
       • means more than the image
     • myth
     • religious language not literally true
       • language of faith is symbolic
   • analogical
     • Aquinas
       • proportion
         • things have qualities in proportion to what they are
           • God has qualities infinitely
       • attribution
         • God gives us our attributes
           • God gives us our goodness
     • Ramsey
       • models and qualifiers
         • try to explain things with examples
           • If we say God is infinitely wise, wise is the model and infinitely is the qualifier
   • language games
     • Wittgenstein
       • language is a game, certain words don't work in other contexts
         • using rugby language in a game of monopoly
     • Phillips
       • supported Wittgenstein's views

3. Problems of religious language

   • religious language is meaningless as it is neither analytic nor synthetic (not verifiable)
   • if you falsify a religious statement then it would be more meaningful as a result
   • words have different meanings
   • anthropomorphism
   • 'ordinary' words become inadequate
   • are religious statements literal or non-literal
   • religion can be metaphysical or abstract

4. strengths and weaknesses of the verification and falsification principles

   • strengths
     • makes religion easier to understand
     • we apply verification in everyday life
       • if I said I am good at something you would ask me to prove it
     • logical positivists based their ideas on a posteriori evidence
     • logical positivists would defy the virgin birth and ressurection
     • most people will not give up their views even though they have no evidence to support them
     • logical positivists have helped religion to conform with these principles
   • weaknesses
     • principles fail their own tests
     • analogy, symbol and language games defeat the principles
     • religion doesn't need these principles
     • Swinburne (toys move when not looking)
       • cant prove wrong
     • can only verify statements about God after death
     • bliks

5. strengths and weaknesses of religious language

   • strengths
     • It highlights the non-cognitive nature of religious language
     • It distinguishes it from other forms of language
     • It provides boundaries for the uses of language
     • Statements are judged within their context – they are not inherently true or false
     • Recognises the range of interpretations (non – cognitive)
     • One can be ‘initiated’ into the ‘game’ e.g. believers
   • weaknesses
     • Believers’ claims cannot be empirically tested
     • It alienates people not initiated into the rules of the game
     • Religious statements do aim to correspond with reality – God, Judgement & Afterlife are real to a believer, they are not simply ideas.
     • Rules cannot be adapted
     • Challenges are too easily rejected