RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
SPECIFICATION
Religious language:
The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about
religious language.
The empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of
metaphysical (here, religious) language:
The verification principle and verification/falsification (Ayer).
Hick’s response to Ayer (eschatological verification) and issues
arising from that response.
Further responses: the 'University Debate':
Anthony Flew on falsification (Wisdom’s ‘Gardener’)
Basil Mitchell's response to Flew (the Partisan)
Hare's response to Flew (bliks and the lunatic)
and issues arising from those responses.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF RELLIGIOUS
LANGUAGE:
Cognitivism - religious claims aim to describe how the world/reality is: they express beliefs that such-
and-such is the case (i.e. they are ‘truth apt’).
, -> “God exists” expresses the belief that God exists, which is true or false depending on whether
it describes or mis-describes reality.
Non-cognitivism - religious claims do not aim to describe the world through assertions which may be
true or false (so religious beliefs are not ‘truth apt’). Rather, they express non-belief-like attitudes
towards the world, such as emotions, desires, faith, or guiding principles.
-> It is not possible to verify or falsify the claim “God exists”, so instead someone using that
statement expresses a commitment to a certain way of life/of interpreting the world. It is more of
an attitude/emotional/value statement.
[TIP: Wittgenstein argues that when a believer says 'God exists' this is not the same as a scientist
saying 'black swans exist'. When a believer talks about God, they aren't putting forward a scientific
hypothesis, they are expressing a way of seeing the world]
EMPIRICIST/LOGICAL POSITIVIST CHALLENGES TO STATUS OF RELIGIOUS
LANGUAGE:
** VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE - developed by A. J. Ayer who aligned himself with the thinking of the
Logical Positivists - typically used to show statements about God are meaningless
Ayer made the claim that a proposition is only meaningful if;
SPECIFICATION
Religious language:
The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about
religious language.
The empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of
metaphysical (here, religious) language:
The verification principle and verification/falsification (Ayer).
Hick’s response to Ayer (eschatological verification) and issues
arising from that response.
Further responses: the 'University Debate':
Anthony Flew on falsification (Wisdom’s ‘Gardener’)
Basil Mitchell's response to Flew (the Partisan)
Hare's response to Flew (bliks and the lunatic)
and issues arising from those responses.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF RELLIGIOUS
LANGUAGE:
Cognitivism - religious claims aim to describe how the world/reality is: they express beliefs that such-
and-such is the case (i.e. they are ‘truth apt’).
, -> “God exists” expresses the belief that God exists, which is true or false depending on whether
it describes or mis-describes reality.
Non-cognitivism - religious claims do not aim to describe the world through assertions which may be
true or false (so religious beliefs are not ‘truth apt’). Rather, they express non-belief-like attitudes
towards the world, such as emotions, desires, faith, or guiding principles.
-> It is not possible to verify or falsify the claim “God exists”, so instead someone using that
statement expresses a commitment to a certain way of life/of interpreting the world. It is more of
an attitude/emotional/value statement.
[TIP: Wittgenstein argues that when a believer says 'God exists' this is not the same as a scientist
saying 'black swans exist'. When a believer talks about God, they aren't putting forward a scientific
hypothesis, they are expressing a way of seeing the world]
EMPIRICIST/LOGICAL POSITIVIST CHALLENGES TO STATUS OF RELIGIOUS
LANGUAGE:
** VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE - developed by A. J. Ayer who aligned himself with the thinking of the
Logical Positivists - typically used to show statements about God are meaningless
Ayer made the claim that a proposition is only meaningful if;
