religious language II

• Context-


  Intellectual movement emphasising reason, individualism and scepticism.

  Comte called this the 'positive age'- information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge- a priori.

  As a result of the Logical positivists were formed- most famous were in the Vienna Circle led by Mortiz Shclick- a group of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians that would investigate scientific language and methodology- God doesn't exist he is not empirically verifiable.

  
  

  Philosophical distinction in language is made between cognitive and non-cognitive language.

  Religious language causes philosophers with a problem of knowing we can speak about God in a meaningful way.
• Cognitive language:


  truth claims asserting facts, something that can be know

  E.g Brampton is a school in Newham- can verify this through sensory experience.
• Non-cognitive language:


  does not describe facts and cannot be determined such as feelings and values

  E.g Brampton is the best and most compassionate school.
• What is religious language?


  For atheists, religious language is non-cognitive because when theists talk about God, this is a reflection of their feelings and values towards the idea of God. Furthermore, these feelings and values are unable to be verified thus cannot be understood as truth claims but rather as something which has an inability to verify.
• Hume


  For Hume, if a statement does not follow a cognitive framework then we should 'commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.' For religious language, this means that we should not engage in this because it cannot be verified. For example, we should not use statements like 'God created the world' as we are unable to observe the creation.

  
  

  LP would therefore argue only propositions that can be verified empirically can be meaningful.
• Hume: Fork principal


  All knowledge is found in two places:

  Matter of facts- from the senses e.g. it's raining outside, the sky is blue

  Relation of ideas- triangle has three sides, 2+2=4 (mathematical statements)
• Analytical propositions-


  a priori, true by definition

  E.g. all bachelors are unmarried men

  Tautology- statements that say the same thing twice 'ice is icy'

  Mathematical statements- 2+2=4

  These statements are meaningful in themselves
• Synthetic propositions-


  a posteriori, additional information is needed.

  'The sky is red'

  These statements are true if they can be verified using empirical evidence.
• Link to LP


  LP can only accept statements to be true if they are analytic statements- a priori through logical reasoning or synthetic- a posteriori which can be tested empirically.

  
  

  LPs are not concerned with whether a proposition is true or not, but rather if it can be proven. E.g. Brampton is a girls school, elephants are small.

  In this sense, LPs would not accept religious language as it is neither analytical or synthetic- statements such as God is love cannot be proven or verified.
• Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus


  The only language with meaning was the language of science, language that referred to empirical reality and language that mirrored the world as sensed.

  
  

  'Whereof we do not know, thereof we cannot speak'

  You should not speak of things which cannot be verified because it is meaningless, and therefore we should not use these statements.
• Ayer: logical positivism


  British philosopher introduced logical positivism in the UK

  Creates rules to see if language is meaningful.

  
  

  'A statement which cannot be conclusively verified... is simply devoid of meaning'

  Unless language is not empirically proved to be correct or incorrect, it doesn't provide any knowledge and doesn't have meaning.
• Link to religious language


  For Ayer, analytical propositions are what we should consider to be meaningful and should be used. If not analytical or not empirically verifiable then it gives no further knowledge thus deemed insignificant because it is not factually relevant.

  
  

  Religious believers cannot state under what conditions they would call these claims true or false, nor can they suggest a test that would help solve this either.

  God created the world- not there to see God create the world thus can't verify empirically

  God is perfect or immutable- not falsifiable, no test to gain meaning of perfection- no empirical evidence available

  
  

  Religious language is therefore unverifiable, so meaningless

  'Such reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense
• Verification principle -


  Language is only meaningful if it fits to one of the following criteria:

  An analytical statements such as a mathematical truth or tautology (all bachelors are unmarried men)

  It is a synthetic statement that can be empirically verified.
• Recognition of limitations


  Ayer recognises the limitations in the LP approach as scientific truth and historical truth would need to be dismissed.

  
  

  E.g The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066- rendered meaningless as we cannot go back and empirically verify first hand, we rely on secondary sources to do so.
• Strong verification:


  something that can be verified conclusively

  Do not need much additional information to verify and empirically verify

  E.g. 8 planets have been observed to orbit the sun
• Weak verification:


  anything shown to be probable by observation or knowing in principle can also be meaningful

  For an assertion to be true, one simply has to state what kind of evidence would verify its contents.

  E.g there are mountains on the dark side of the moon
• Link to religion


  Metaphysical statements such as 'God exists' cannot even in principle be verified because they express propositions about a world which transcends sense experience.

  In this case, these types of statements are deemed cognitively meaningless.

  Metaphysical questions are no more than pseudo questions.

  
  

  The statement 'there exists a transcendent God' holds no significance

  The verification principle holds that religious language is cognitive and is meaningless.
• OTW


  we cannot see God in this life but we can empirically verify Him eschatologically- in the afterlife.
• Strengths


  Clear parameters to verifying a statement through either analytical propositions or synthetic propositions- can verify statements empirically or via experience.

  
  

  It is a logical approach supported by various philosophers (Hume & Wittgenstein)

  
  

  It is not just an argument against God and his existence; both the agnostic and atheist are making meaningless statements

  
  

  Weak verification means we can make statements about history, scientific theories that are not verifiable in all situations but we know to have meaning.
• Weaknesses


  The laws of science cannot be absolutely verified (to overcome use weak verification)

  The verification principle allows for untrue 'nonsense' statements to be meaningful

  (elephants are pink)

  The verification principle holds limited value because it cannot be verified itself.

  Specifically for weak verification

  Swinburne - Cumulative argument

  Hick - Eschatological verification
• Language games- Wittgenstein


  As a logical positivist he believes that 'where we cannot speak, we should be silent'

  For Wittgenstein there are other parts of life that we can't experience, we will have difficulty understanding and conceptualising this.

  People should confine themselves to only talk about things that they can understand and conceptualise
• Example: can you bowl a maiden?


  Term used in cricket- means throwing the ball towards the batter

  Need to understand what this means before you can answer- cannot conceptualise the term if you haven't had experience with the sport.

  Meaning is best understood in its context
• Form of life


  The way you were raised/your lived experiences
• Analogy of the game


  Language should be thought of through the analogy of a game. Once you know the rules you can 'play'

  If you understand how the words are being used you won't get confused about the meaning.

  
  

  E.g. God is love to an atheist

  Need to teach the rules- have a different form of life
• If a lion could talk, we should not be able to understand him'


  The language games of lions are way too different to our own to even try to understand it.

  There is no meaning because of a different form of life

  Humans will never be able to conceptualise the language being used
• Tool box analogy


  Language is like tools in a tool box, each tool has a role, so does each word.

  You can't expect those who are non-religious to understand the value of religious language because they have not experienced this.
• Concerns


  He was less concerned with the truth or falsity of language, this is in direct contrast with the logical positivists that he himself influenced
• Analogy of chess


  Meaningful statements are a matter of using conventionally-defined terms within 'language games' that we play out in the course of everyday life

  Analogy of chess- the queen moves

  Only if you are familiar with chess or have regular experiences playing chess is when you will fully understand the meaning/significance of the queen in a game
• Locomotive


  It is like looking into the cabin of a locomotive.

  Levers on a train may look the same but have different use, in the same way language may look the same but have very different meanings

  'Do not ask me for the meaning ask me for the use
• Application to philosophers


  Philosophers can either get better at understanding the game or learn a new game.

  You can't get outside the game to understand the game.

  Even when you ask for meaning, it means different things in different games
• Application to God


  E.g. God created the world- scientific: Big Bang, religious: God

  
  

  The problems philosophers have is they may misunderstand the game- different views=different rules.

  Creates a meaningless discussion.
• Forms of Life (Lebensformen) - Wittgenstein


  Wittgenstein says that a language game is the speaking part of a 'form of life'.

  A form of life is far broader than any specific language game, it is the foundation out of which

  language games grow, the collection of cultural practices which embed language games

  Comes down to influences in life.

  
  

  Forms of life are an identifiable set of practices and social conventions, which give the people who follow them a sense of 'form' to their lives.

  -Typical in that society

  They are rooted in natural human reactions and activities
• Wittgenstein - Coherence theory of truth

  For Christians, the word God is meaningful because it means something to them, it is coherent to them- in line with their form of life

  Coherence theory of truth- Something has meaning if it is coherent (logical and clear) to you.

  Wittgenstein argues that 'God' is meaningful to atheists in terms of language as well as believers. As to one group it means existence, to the other, non-existence.

  
  

  The word 'God' is also meaningful to atheists but has a different meaning to a theist e.g. believing God does not exist.
• Application to religious language


  Religious language contains many different language games - (praise and worship,

  prayer, miracles); religious language is forming a game in its own right, governed

  by particular rules.

  'A religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a

  system of reference'.- particular rules to follow religiously, religion itself is a language game

  'God exists' is not a statement of fact

  Wittgenstein holds that religious language is non-cognitive and is meaningful.
• Religious texts


  Christian meaning on how the universe was created- literal vs liberal

  Literal: Made in 6 days, rested on the 7th

  Liberal: Made in 6 periods

  Within religion, there can be different forms of life
• W: D. Z. Phillips


  Acknowledges the view that if religious beliefs are isolated, self-sufficient language games, it becomes difficult to explain why people should cherish those beliefs so much.

  
  

  "Religious beliefs begin to look like hobbies, something with which men occupy themselves at weekends".

  Language games make religious language become a kind of fideism - the belief that faith is independent of reason, and therefore not open to criticism from it.
• Language games: OTW


  Is there a difference between these two scenarios?

  1. "I believe in the Last Judgement", and his friend says "I'm not so sure",

  2. D.Z Phillips example of two people arguing about the German plane were having a disagreement.

  You can't disagree with or contradict someone over something unless you share a common understanding of the thing.
• Phillips: OTW


  "If a philosopher wants to give an account of religion, he must pay attention to what religious believers do and say ... It is not the task of a philosopher to decide whether there is a God or not, but to ask what it means to affirm or deny the existence of God."

  
  

  He argues that statements such as 'god exists' are not factual - they are merely expressions of belief: "Talk about God's reality cannot be considered as talk about the existence of an object"

  Religious believers and Philosophers cannot belong to the same group when using religious language.
• Strengths:


  Clear parameters to validate language,that is more inline with scientific ideas.

  
  

  It distinguishes religious language from other forms of language providing boundaries for the uses of language, which are a logical approach to Religious language

  
  

  Takes a pragmatic approach to language as it accounts for the way in which much language is used. Statements are judged within their context - they are not inherently true or false
• Weaknesses


  Theist believe their language is cognitive

  
  

  The theory resembles fideism, So lacks meaningful debate that is offered by Verification principle or Falsification Principle

  
  

  Rejects the view that language can be objective and scientific. He implies that our language can never convey truth in an

  absolute sense, which in itself is illogical