“Is religious language meaningful”
Introduction I will argue that religious language is meaningless
-take side of logical positivists, taking science as its model
AJ ayers VP P1-outline the VP principle
P2- fails condition 1. P3- fails condition two. P4-metaphysical entities cannot be
empirically proven, nor verified C1/2- not verifiable, therefore meaningful
P4 is strong as it makes use of hume's fork
AJ VP self refuting Fails its own conditions, meaningless
Then Vp doesn't make
propositions Only questions the meaningfulness of propositions about the world, it itself is not a proposition,
it is only intended as a definition, not an empirical hypothesis about meaning
Eschatological Countering P4, we can verify after death-
Insert parable of the celestial city
Parables conclusion is Presumes the metaphysical possibility we will be able to verify after or death
based on the
presumption
Anothony flew's Falsifiable statements are meaningful and can be proved to be true or false, it will be falsifiable
falsifiability if it is inconsistent with some possible observation. If you cannot conceive of a change in the
world with the assertion existing it is not falsifiable.
-theists must accept god is falsifiable, or reject his existence
Hare, Theists have Religious statements are bliks (expressions of a particular attitude) does not make a claim
faith, not provisional about the world- bliks are still unfalsifiable, yet meaningful to that person.
hypothesis
They are claims Seems incoherent that theists do not make claims about the world
Introduction I will argue that religious language is meaningless
-take side of logical positivists, taking science as its model
AJ ayers VP P1-outline the VP principle
P2- fails condition 1. P3- fails condition two. P4-metaphysical entities cannot be
empirically proven, nor verified C1/2- not verifiable, therefore meaningful
P4 is strong as it makes use of hume's fork
AJ VP self refuting Fails its own conditions, meaningless
Then Vp doesn't make
propositions Only questions the meaningfulness of propositions about the world, it itself is not a proposition,
it is only intended as a definition, not an empirical hypothesis about meaning
Eschatological Countering P4, we can verify after death-
Insert parable of the celestial city
Parables conclusion is Presumes the metaphysical possibility we will be able to verify after or death
based on the
presumption
Anothony flew's Falsifiable statements are meaningful and can be proved to be true or false, it will be falsifiable
falsifiability if it is inconsistent with some possible observation. If you cannot conceive of a change in the
world with the assertion existing it is not falsifiable.
-theists must accept god is falsifiable, or reject his existence
Hare, Theists have Religious statements are bliks (expressions of a particular attitude) does not make a claim
faith, not provisional about the world- bliks are still unfalsifiable, yet meaningful to that person.
hypothesis
They are claims Seems incoherent that theists do not make claims about the world
