religious language

View mindmap
  • religious language
    • verification principle
      • for something to be meaningful it must be analytic or empirically verifiable
        • but the definition itself is not analytic nor empirically verifiable so statement is meaningless on its own terms
    • falsification
      • claim is only meaningful if it is logically incompatible with some set of observations
        • but if we weakened logically incompatible into evidence against it would be the same as verification
    • cognitivist
      • aim to describe how the world is, can be true or false,express beliefs that the claim is true
    • non cognitivist
      • do not aim to describe the world,cannot be true or false, express attitudes toward the world
    • flew (garderner)
      • how is an undetectable gardener different from not gardener at all? for something to be meaningful there must be something it denies
    • hare (bliks)
      • an unshaken attitude or view toward the world (e.g student who thinks his university lecturer's want to murder him)
    • mitchell (partisian
      • agrees that something must go against the claim for it to be meaningul
        • partisan story where you are fighting in war and a stranger tells you he is the leader of the resistance, but acts as if to help the enemy at times,but stranger is trusted and must have a good reason for the behaviour
          • a claim can still be meaningful without us saying what experiences would lead us to relinquish it
            • we just have to know that experiences can count against it
    • hick (eschatological verification
      • god exists makes no predictions about what will happen in this life but can for the next life (afterlife)

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all religious language resources »