ASSES THE VIEW THAT ALL TALK OF GOD IS MEANINGLESS
INTRO: De ne religious language + cognitive & non-cognitive
If meaning is de ned by whether or not a statement is cognitive (and so
true or false), then religious language is meaningless as it cannot be
veri ed or falsi ed. However, I would argue meaning should be de ned
by how statements a ect the way we interact with the world, and so
religious language has meaning, as proven by Hare’s Bliks.
1. FIRSTLY, I MUST PROVE RL CANNOT BE VERIFIED:
AYER: Veri cation Principle (NC) Meaningless
➢ Can’t be veri ed analytically, synthetically or mathematically and so RL is meaningless.
Minor
SWINBURNE: not necessarily meaningless love
➢ Things that we cannot verify are not necessarily meaningless e.g. love Can't prove that one
person loves another but "I love you" is not a meaningless statement.
Stronger
Too strict
➢ Intuitive, historic and scienti c statements that are widely accepted cannot be veri ed.
Weak version of VP
Defeating issue in terms
➢ G Veri ed in possibility/principle (astronaut con rms something synthetically, then we can
accept it as its veri ed in possibility). RL still cannot be veri ed in this way.
2. SECONDLY, I MUST PROVE RL CANNOT BE FALSIFIED:
of falsi cation
FLEW: Invisible gardener Meaningless
➢ “God exists” = meaningless as its unfalsi able in the same way the existence of the invisible
garden is unfalsi able.
3. FAILS TO BE FALSIFIED OR VERIFIED BUT…
RL CAN STILL HOLD MEANING IF IT IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF HOW YOU INTERACT WITH THE WORLD:
BRAITHWAITE: meaningful bc prescriptive Meaningful
Strong
➢ RL recommends a course of action. So, for example, the phrase 'God loves me' has meaning
because it advises you to live your life in a living life.
Not everyone would see that as prescriptive
➢ It’s only prescriptive if you already consider the language meaningful. An atheist could look
at religious claims like “God loves me” and nd no advice within it.
R.M. Hare - Bliks (NC)
➢ Hare would argue that that is okay. Not everyone has to nd meaning within it personally, but
Defeating
RL has meaning in the sense that it forms a mental lter for how we live our lives, whether
that is that God exists or that God doesn’t - these statements hold importance to the
individual. HE PRESENTS THIS through the Paranoid student: because of the existence of
‘bliks’, if you replace the paranoid students claim with statements about God’s existence,
they can also be argued to have meaning because a person who makes them has a right to
their own mental lters, and therefore is meaningful to the individual.
Religious language has meaning if meaning is de ned in terms of how much they a ect how we
interact with the world, which is the purpose of ‘bliks’.
fifi fi fifi fifi fifi fi fififf fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi ff fi
INTRO: De ne religious language + cognitive & non-cognitive
If meaning is de ned by whether or not a statement is cognitive (and so
true or false), then religious language is meaningless as it cannot be
veri ed or falsi ed. However, I would argue meaning should be de ned
by how statements a ect the way we interact with the world, and so
religious language has meaning, as proven by Hare’s Bliks.
1. FIRSTLY, I MUST PROVE RL CANNOT BE VERIFIED:
AYER: Veri cation Principle (NC) Meaningless
➢ Can’t be veri ed analytically, synthetically or mathematically and so RL is meaningless.
Minor
SWINBURNE: not necessarily meaningless love
➢ Things that we cannot verify are not necessarily meaningless e.g. love Can't prove that one
person loves another but "I love you" is not a meaningless statement.
Stronger
Too strict
➢ Intuitive, historic and scienti c statements that are widely accepted cannot be veri ed.
Weak version of VP
Defeating issue in terms
➢ G Veri ed in possibility/principle (astronaut con rms something synthetically, then we can
accept it as its veri ed in possibility). RL still cannot be veri ed in this way.
2. SECONDLY, I MUST PROVE RL CANNOT BE FALSIFIED:
of falsi cation
FLEW: Invisible gardener Meaningless
➢ “God exists” = meaningless as its unfalsi able in the same way the existence of the invisible
garden is unfalsi able.
3. FAILS TO BE FALSIFIED OR VERIFIED BUT…
RL CAN STILL HOLD MEANING IF IT IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF HOW YOU INTERACT WITH THE WORLD:
BRAITHWAITE: meaningful bc prescriptive Meaningful
Strong
➢ RL recommends a course of action. So, for example, the phrase 'God loves me' has meaning
because it advises you to live your life in a living life.
Not everyone would see that as prescriptive
➢ It’s only prescriptive if you already consider the language meaningful. An atheist could look
at religious claims like “God loves me” and nd no advice within it.
R.M. Hare - Bliks (NC)
➢ Hare would argue that that is okay. Not everyone has to nd meaning within it personally, but
Defeating
RL has meaning in the sense that it forms a mental lter for how we live our lives, whether
that is that God exists or that God doesn’t - these statements hold importance to the
individual. HE PRESENTS THIS through the Paranoid student: because of the existence of
‘bliks’, if you replace the paranoid students claim with statements about God’s existence,
they can also be argued to have meaning because a person who makes them has a right to
their own mental lters, and therefore is meaningful to the individual.
Religious language has meaning if meaning is de ned in terms of how much they a ect how we
interact with the world, which is the purpose of ‘bliks’.
fifi fi fifi fifi fifi fi fififf fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi ff fi
