20th Century

• Denotation

  • when the word stands for something, as a label fpr it.
  • clear, literal meaning taken at face value.
• Connotation

  • when the word carries other association with it.
  • meaning beyond literal sense.
• The limits of my language mean the limits of my world - Wittgenstein
• Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius
• Cognitive

  • when it is appropriate to ask if the statement is right or wrong.
• Non-Cognitive

  • Where it is not appropriate to ask if it is true/false.
• Verification principle


  • for a statement to be meaningful it had to be verifiable by the sense experiences.
  • If not analytic or empirically verifiable = factually insignificant.
  • 'The Lord is my shepherd', 'God answers my prayers' cannot be verified as true/false = meaningless.
  • Ayer doesn't say these are unimportant, just that they do not have meaning.
• Weak verification principle

  • accepted statements that were verifiable in principle.
  • (Before space travel) - He wrote, 'there are mountains in the far side of the moon' was impossible to verify.
  • However, it could be verified in principle by sending rocket to moon.
  • Ayer argued statements about God, ethics & arts remain meaningless because they cannot be verified in principle.
  • Later, Ayer rejected the weak principle, because anything could be verified in principle, no matter how impossible it may seem.
• strong verifiable principle

  • conclusive on empirical evidence.
• Keith Ward (criticism vp)

  • Verification principle excluded nothing, since all experience are allowable because anything could be 'verified in principle'.
  • He argued the existence of God can be verified in principle since 'If I were God I would be able to check the truth of my own existence.'
• Swinburne (criticism vp)

  • people generally accept 'all ravens are black' but no way to confirm this statement - cannot be proved true/false - yet is still meaningful.
• Criticism of verification

  • Strict scientific views = statements like 'I'm not feeling well' are meaningless even if they make perfect sense as they rely on emotions.
  • Strong principle = something that can be verified conclusively by observation & experience = no historical info cannot be verified as fact with sense observation.
  • What evidence counts? - Ayer says REx are rejected. However, researchers say there is clear evidence such experiences happen & God cannot be ruled out = therefore religious experiences can be verified weakly?
• John Hick on verifiability

  • God talk is eschatologically verifiable.
  • Religion is not meaningless because its truth is verifiable in the afterlife.
  • Celestial city story - 2 men walking down the same road, 1 thinks it leads to the celestial city, other thinks it leads nowhere.
  • Both interpret signs along the way - verification is possible -there is either a celestial city or not.
  • However, there is no disproof - there will be no one to know the falsity of belief.
• Falsification principle

  • Flew - Theological utterances are not facts; they have no cognitive meaning.
  • Hare - Theological utterances are not facts, they are 'bliks' & are meaningful.
  • Mitchell - Theological utterances are meant as assertations & are very meaningful to those who hold onto them.
• Flew

  • influenced by Popper - rather than focusing on verifiability, focus should be on Falsifiability.
  • not abt presenting empirical evidence in support of something but about asserting something & at same time knowing what evidence can count against it.
• Flew - John wisdom's parable of the gardener

  • 2 explorers discover a clearing that that resembles a humanly-made garden yet in other ways resemble a natural phenomenon.
  • explorer 1 - convinced that there is a gardener; other disagrees.
  • Sets tests to hypothesis that there is a gardener; using fences, bloodhounds. - No evidence of gardener.
  • At every stage - believer qualifies the hypothesis: gardener comes at night; he is invisible; he cannot be detected by senses.
  • Explorer 2 asks - 'how does your invisible, intangible gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or no gardener at all?.
• Flew & parable of gardener

  • 'Death by a thousand qualifications'.
  • For non-believer, no difference between a God that loves, God that doesn't love & no God at all.
  • Statement can only be regarded as meaningful if some state or event can be specified - if it occurred, it would falsify the statement.
  • If nothing is ruled out, nothing is asserted.
  • He felt believers kept qualifying their claims to avoid falsification, ultimately producing 'death by a thousand qualifications'.
• Vardy agreeing with Flew

  • Example of friend talking about her boyfriend & no matter how cruel he is they will never accept they are not right together.
  • Same way - theists will cling onto idea of 'God is good', however cruel or unjust the situation is.
• R.M Hare

  • when using religious language, they should not be interpreted as truth claims in a cognitive sense/facts.
  • 'Bliks' - lunatic believed all his teachers at university are trying to kill him.
  • This way he saw the world & nothing could change his view of the world.
  • no evidence/argument can demonstrate the falseness of a blik.
• Mitchell

  • Parable of Partisan
  • Religious belief does have factual content (cognitive).
  • Partisan trusts in the stranger not groundless - makes a deliberate choice to trust the stranger.
  • Potential problem - Partisan meets stranger face to face so has grounds to trust him. However, believers haven't met God.
• • Flew argues, when theists talk about God & his attributes, they refuse to rule out any states of affair.
  • 'under what circumstances would your statement that God loves us be false?' - they wouldn't be able to think of any.
• D.Z Phillips developing Hare

  • developed Hare
  • religious statements are not cognitive truth-claims but fall into different category of language usage.
  • a way of saying how the viewer views the world
• Mitchell

  • argues that religious statements have factual content.
  • he was right to trust the stranger because there is truth & falsity to be found.
  • Comparing to God - in this world, evidence for loving God can seem incomplete & ambiguous but for Mitchell, there is still factual content to religious assertions of existence of loving God.
• Religious language is meaningless

  • Strong verification - RL can't be verified by sense experience; it can't be talked about as true or false = meaningless.
  • Strong verification - 'God is good' is not true by definition, it is not tautology or an analytic statement = meaningless.
  • Ayer, weak principle - outlines observations would make statement verifiable & worth discussing. RL cannot be verified in principle = meaningless.
• Religious language is not meaningless

  • Brummer & Phillips - believe sentences of faith, like poetry & literature shouldn't be treated in same way as scientific statements. Verification principle is too narrow.
  • Swinburne - toys may come alive at night & may return to cupboard before anyone sees them. Suggests that statements are not meaningless just because they cannot be empirically verified.
  • Hick - religious statements can be verified eschatologically.
• tautology

  statement that is always true; it contains definition within it.
• Cognitive approaches to religious language make more sense

  • Aquinas - analogy of attribution & proportionality show words can accurately & positively describe God. Truth claims assert reality of God.
  • Verificationism - treats RL like failed scientific assertions because it treats all language cognitively.
  • Falsification - believers make statements sound like scientific claims, so they should be judged by same criteria and accept they could be falsified.
• Non-Cognitive approach makes better sense of RL

  • Language Games - show meaning of words depends on context or use. Cupitt argues that since religious claims aren't objectively true outside of language game, they are non-cognitive.
  • Against Verificationism: can be described as non-cognitive because it goes beyond scientific criteria.
  • against falsification: Bliks maybe important to a person & have huge impact on their life but is not making a universal truth claim.
• Language games allow religious lang to be meaningful

  • Talk about God & religion is meaningful to those who are in same language game & understand rules of game.
  • Meaning depends on group in which language is being used. No one from outside group can criticise the language or claim it is false = RL is meaningless.
  • RL for Phillips is beyond discussion of fact (cognitive). It can be meaningful whether it is cognitive or non-cognitive as it depends on form of life in which it is spoken.
• Language games don't give meaning to RL

  • Anything could be meaningful as long as there is an agreed understanding. In 'unicorns exist' game, it is meaningful to say unicorns are real but unicorns don't really exist.
  • Geach - language game is a circular theory - the word takes its meaning from game but game takes meaning from words within it, which take their meaning from game.
  • Cupitt - games show RL is non-cognitive & doesn't have an objective meaning outside religious form of life.
• 'whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.' - Wittgenstein
• Wittgenstein

  • to use language is to participate in a game where we know & accept rules.
  • doesn't mean language is trivial, rather the analogy of a game best highlights the nature of language.
  • meaning of words are determined by the 'language game' the words are part of.
  • Eg of chess - to as k about 'queen' or 'pawns' in any other context would not make sense.
  • Therefore, words that do not follow the particular rules then you will be talking 'nonsense'.
  • 'lebensform' (form of life) - signifies the context in which language might be used.
• weakness of language games

  • theory may resemble Fideism (faiths of independent reason)
  • Phillips - arguable leads to irrationalism
  • don't allow for believers claims to be empirically tested.
  • rules of game cannot be changed to let outsiders in.
  • If all are made in imago dei, shouldn't we all be familiar with it?
• support of language games - D.Z Phillips

  meaningful for those who genuinely use it.

  • " doesn't need to be justified for those outside the game
  • terms & concepts only make sense inside game
  • makes no sense to talk about salvation, prayer, sin outside of the religious context.
• Support of language games - Donovan

  • useful reminder that misunderstandings & confusion are likely to result if statements are taken away from their context, analysed without regard.