bliks

• whose theory is religious language as an expression of a Blik?

  R.M Hare
• what does Hare's use of the term "Blik" refer to?

  a framework of interpretation: a view of the world that is not an assertion but is non-cognitive and non-falsifiable
• Hare believes that religious statements do have meaning, why?

  because of the effects that they have on believers
• although language cannot make factual claims...?

  it still has meaning
• this is because religious language influences what?

  the way a person looks at the world
• what parable does Hare provide to support his claims?

  the parable of the lunatic
• explain the parable:

  a certain lunatic is convinced that all lecturers want to murder him. However many kind lecturers he comes into contact with, the reaction is still the same, nothing can convince him otherwise
• what affects the student?

  the significance of the belief
• according to Hare, what does the lunatic have?

  a blik (a view about the world)
• the idea of Bliks comes from who?

  Hume
• how does the idea of bliks come from Hume?

  because he said that we cannot decide what the world is like by observing it, because ALL observation/evidence is open to interpretation
• (FLEWS REPLY TO HARE) Flew simply rejected Hare's view that religious statements are non-cognitive bliks, why?

  because believers do see their statements about God as cognitive and not as non-cognitive
• the Christian assertion "God cares for his creation" would be pointless if...?

  he/she did not really believe as a matter of fact that there really is a caring God
• unless these are cognitive/factual assertions, what do they amount to?

  what Flew calls "dialectal dud-cheques" (worthless)
• (s) Hare's concept of bliks does explain what?

  why different religions make different factual claims
• (s) the "truths" of one religion might contradict the "truths" of another, give an example:

  Christianity asserts the divinity of Jesus, whereas, Islam denies it
• (s) so what is it easier to accept?

  Hare's view that however sincerely a believer makes his assertions about God and the world, all assertions are expressions of non-cognitive bliks
• (s) they are deeply meaningful to those who have them but what is their value in?


  that personal meaning and not in any factual content they might br supposed to have
• (s) bliks explain why people aren't convinced by evidence that appears to contradict their deeply held beliefs, how?

  believers see the evidence through the framework of their bliks
• (s) Hare's view correctly reflects the idea that...?

  religion gives a view or attitude that is used to interpret the whole of life
• (w) as Flew says, most believers don't see their belief statements as non-cognitive for example...?

  the claim "there is a God", believers would argue that this is not just a way of seeing the world, but a factual truth
• (w) Hare seems to make a very odd claim, what is this?

  that Christian beliefs are expressions of non-cognitive bliks, whether Christians know it or not (why are they not able to make their own mind up?)
• (w) if there are no factual truths about Christianity then...?

  its value reduces to its psychological and sociological benefits
• (w) "there is a God" is a factual claim, not a non-cognitive one, how?

  it is verifiable in principle (by the existence and qualities of the world) and it is falsifiable in principle (by the problem of evil)
• (w) in addition, why would believers...?

  want to believe it non-cognitively?