By the end of today’s lesson you will Understand the difference between cognitive and non-cognitive language. Know what the verification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand criticisms of the verification principle.

Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 4: Religious Language AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding A: Inherent problems of religious language: Limitations of language for traditional conceptions of God such as infinite and timeless Challenge to sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible Challenge that religious language is not a common shared base and experience The differences between cognitive and non-cognitive language. B: Religious language as cognitive, but meaningless: Logical Positivism - Verification (A. J. Ayer) – religious ethical language as meaningless; there can be no way in which we could verify the truth or falsehood of the propositions (e.g. God is good, murder is wrong) Falsification nothing can counter the belief (Antony Flew). Criticisms of verification: the verification principle cannot itself be verified; neither can historical events; universal scientific statements; the concept of eschatological verification goes against this. Criticisms of falsification: Richard Hare – bliks (the way that a person views the world gives meaning to them even if others do not share the same view); Basil Mitchell – partisan and the stranger (certain things can be meaningful even when they cannot be falsified); Swinburne – toys in the cupboard (concept meaningful even though falsifying the statement is not possible).

Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Language Based on fact. Empirically provable. Statements that have a truth value. Objective Expresses an attitude/view/feelings. Statements that cannot have a truth value. Subjective

Cognitive or Non-cognitive? Sort the cards into two categories; cognitive and non-cognitive statements.

Is religious language cognitive or non-cognitive? THINK-PAIR-SHARE on the above question. Be prepared to justify your opinion during feedback. Many theists argue that religious language is cognitive. Q: How can a statement such as ‘God exists’ be cognitive? Clue: Think about the arguments for God’s existence that you have studied. Many philosophers argue that religious language is non- cognitive. Q: How can a statement such as ‘God exists’ be non-cognitive? Clue: Think about how one’s beliefs affect one’s interpretation and view of the world.

Learning Check … By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand the difference between cognitive and non-cognitive language. Know what the verification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand criticisms of the verification principle.

Is religious language meaningful? The claim that religious language is meaningless has its roots in the philosophy of empiricist David Hume. In Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume wrote, “…If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” Hume’s point here is that if we encounter a form of discourse which appears to make statements about the way things are but has no grounding in experience, and is not checkable by experience, then it is worthless. The language of religion is just such a form of discourse, so we must “commit it then to the flames.”

Is religious language meaningful? In the 1920’s a group of philosophers, known as the Vienna Circle, decided that some language was meaningless. They formulated the verification principle which argued that for a statement to be meaningful, it had to be verified by sense experiences (sight, touch, smell taste, hearing). In other words, it had to be empirically verified. Moritz Schlick, the leader of the Vienna Circle explained that “The meaning of a proposition is the method of verification.” This approach to language and its verification became known as Logical Positivism.

Verification To prove something true or false. You know whether something is true or false if you can ‘check it out’ – i.e. gain evidence.

Empirical Based on experience and observation.

Analytic True by definition. The statement can be verified by using internal logic. An analytic statement cannot be false and contains the germ of its own verification. They are a priori statements. E.g. A bachelor is an unmarried man.

Synthetic Verified by some form of external sense experience or experiment. A statement in which its truth or falsity depends on evidence that has to be collected. They are a posteriori statements. E.g. Barry is a bachelor.

Analytic or Synthetic? Categorise your cards into two columns: Analytic and synthetic What do you notice about the religious statements? What are the implications of this?

Meaningful Meaningful means making sense. The logical positivists are not concerned about whether the statement is true or false but whether or not it makes sense. If you do not know how to verify a statement, then it cannot have meaning. For example, ‘all elephants are smaller than mice’ is not true, but it is meaningful because it can be verified.

Meaningful Statements Alongside analytical and synthetic statements, the Logical Positivists also regarded mathematical and tautological statements as meaningful. Tautology: the saying of the same thing twice over in different words. E.g: They arrived one after the other in succession I hiked to the summit at the top of the mountain. Statements which are not analytical, synthetic, mathematical or tautological are meaningless.

Implications for Religious Language The thinkers of the Vienna Circle built upon a philosophical tradition stretching back hundreds of years. Empiricists such as Locke and Hume had argued that truth and knowledge were to be found in that which is observable via our senses. The Vienna Circle shared the view that science would provide knowledge and that areas such as religion, metaphysics and ethics should be avoided.

Implications for Religious Language What is different here is that we are dealing with language. The Logical Positivists argued talk about God is meaningless; it is nonsense and cannot be discussed in any meaningful way. The Logical Positivists argued that religious language is meaningless as it cannot be verified. Note that it is not only the religious believer that has a problem here. The atheist and the agnostic are making equally meaningless statements.

A J Ayer (1910 – 1989) Scottish philosopher A.J. Ayer belonged to the Logical Positivists. The work of the Vienna Circle was made widely known by Ayer in his book, Language, Truth and Logic. Ayer states: “No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess any literal significance.” Ayer would say that religious statements convey no information. They are non-cognitive; at best they are ‘emotive utterances’.

Why would Ayer say that the statement, “God exists” cannot be either true or false?

Consolidation Tasks TASK 1: Read pages 16-17 of the Eduqas textbook. Add relevant information from your reading to your notes from today’s lesson. TASK 2: AO1 PEEL write-up: Explain why religious language is meaningless according to the verification principle. You will need to: Explain what the VP is – what criteria makes a statement meaningful? Refer to the Logical Positivists Refer to key philosophers – especially Ayer Use examples Include specialist vocabulary

Learning Check … By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand the difference between cognitive and non-cognitive language. Know what the verification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand criticisms of the verification principle.

Criticism: Historical statements would be considered meaningless. E.g. “Columbus discovered America.” Is this statement analytic? Is this statement synthetic? Based on the VP the statement would therefore be considered ... MEANINGLESS! However, it does have meaning and is accepted by many.

Criticism: Historical statements would be considered meaningless. Read page 18 and the top of page 19 in the Eduqas textbook. Do you think that Ayer’s distinction between verification ‘in practice’ and ‘in principle’ and ‘strong’ and ‘weak verification resolves the above criticism?

Strong Verification When there is no doubt that the statement is true or false, as one verifies it using experience and observation. E.g. “Grace has blonde hair” can be proved true or false by visiting Grace and is therefore a meaningful statement. Only statements that can be fully and conclusively verified are meaningful.

Weak Verification Observation at the time counts to make the statement meaningful. E.g. “Nelson won the Battle of Trafalgar” is meaningful as people affirmed the event at the time. Similarly statements that could be affirmed in the future are meaningful. Statements are meaningful so long as experience can render it possible.

Ayer explains strong and weak verification: “A proposition is ... verifiable in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established ... But it is verifiable in the weak sense if it is possible for experience to render it probable.”

When water reaches boiling point it turns to steam. Which of the following statements would Ayer consider meaningful and which would he reject as meaningless? When water reaches boiling point it turns to steam. There is life on other planets. We have a soul A spinster is an unmarried woman. God exists. 3+3=12 91 x 79 = 7189

The VP itself cannot be verified! The statement, “any statement that is not capable of being verified empirically is meaningless” is itself meaningless as it cannot be verified empirically!

Eschatological Verification John Hick The road to the celestial city.

Moral statements would be meaningless. “It is wrong to kill” = meaningless according to the VP. Why? But ... Such statements control our behaviour and judgements. If they were meaningless, why would we behave accordingly? Braithwaite argues that religious statements regulate our behaviour, so must be meaningful.

God’s existence is logically necessary “God exists” may not be seen as logically necessary for the logical positivists, but to many people it is a logically necessary statement. How/why?

All statements would be meaningful! Keith Ward stated that the verification principle excluded nothing, since all experiences are because of the criterion of ‘verification in principle’. He argues that 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.” Ayer himself later admitted the inadequacy of the criteria for verification in that it allowed all statements to be classed as meaningful!

Consolidation Tasks TASK 1: Read the ‘criticisms of verification’ on pages 20-21 of the Eduqas textbook. Add relevant information from your reading to your notes from today’s lesson. TASK 2: AO1 PEEL write-up: Examine the criticisms of the verification principle. You will need to: Mention and explain all the criticisms mentioned on the specification. Refer to the criticisms discussed in today’s lesson.

Learning Check … By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand the difference between cognitive and non-cognitive language. Know what the verification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand criticisms of the verification principle.

Plenary Complete the verification principle crossword.

By the end of today’s lesson you will Have reinforced your knowledge and understanding of the verification principle. Know what the falsification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand the criticisms of the verification principle from: Hare Mitchell Swinburne

Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 4: Religious Language AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding B: Religious language as cognitive, but meaningless: Logical Positivism - Verification (A. J. Ayer) – religious ethical language as meaningless; there can be no way in which we could verify the truth or falsehood of the propositions (e.g. God is good, murder is wrong) Falsification nothing can counter the belief (Antony Flew). Criticisms of verification: the verification principle cannot itself be verified; neither can historical events; universal scientific statements; the concept of eschatological verification goes against this. Criticisms of falsification: Richard Hare – bliks (the way that a person views the world gives meaning to them even if others do not share the same view); Basil Mitchell – partisan and the stranger (certain things can be meaningful even when they cannot be falsified); Swinburne – toys in the cupboard (concept meaningful even though falsifying the statement is not possible).

Starter – Confidence Wheel Complete your confidence wheel for section B

Verification Principle Quiz What is the title of Ayer’s book in which he wrote about the verification principle? What criteria must statements fulfil to be meaningful? What is weak verification and why did Ayer develop it? Apart from theists, name 2 other groups for whom religious statements would be meaningless according to the verification principle. Name the parable told by John Hick to illustrate eschatological verification. How does Keith Ward argue that God’s existence is verifiable in principle? What type of language is meaningful according to Wittgenstein? Name the philosopher who argued that religious and moral statements are meaningful because they regulate behaviour in society? According to Hume, what must one do with language that cannot be empirically tested? Complete this quote from Ayer: “No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess …”

Keep a note of your score. Quiz - Answers ‘Language, Truth and Logic’. Analytic, synthetic, mathematical or tautological Statements that are meaningful if they can be verified in principle. Ayer developed it to overcome the criticisms of historical being meaningless under the VP. Atheists and agnostics The road to the celestial city. He says that if he were God he could verify his own existence. Statements which can be reduced to a pictorial representation of a fact Braithwaite “Commit it then to the flames”. “… any literal significance.” Keep a note of your score.

The Verification Principe Text Interrogation Take it in turns to read each paragraph out loud to your partner. After every paragraph, discuss the meaning, highlight key ideas and annotate. Write down any questions you have. After you have finished, tell your partner as much as you can about the verification principle.

Find the answers What is the title of Ayer’s book in which he wrote about the verification principle? What criteria must statements fulfil to be meaningful? What is weak verification and why did Ayer develop it? Apart from theists, name 2 other groups for whom religious statements would be meaningless according to the verification principle. Name the parable told by John Hick to illustrate eschatological verification. How does Keith Ward argue that God’s existence is verifiable in principle? What type of language is meaningful according to Wittgenstein? Name the philosopher who argued that religious and moral statements are meaningful because they regulate behaviour in society? According to Hume, what must one do with language that cannot be empirically tested? Complete this quote from Ayer: “No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess …”

Quiz, Quiz, Trade What is the title of Ayer’s book in which he wrote about the verification principle? What criteria must statements fulfil to be meaningful? What is weak verification and why did Ayer develop it? Apart from theists, name 2 other groups for whom religious statements would be meaningless according to the verification principle. Name the parable told by John Hick to illustrate eschatological verification. How does Keith Ward argue that God’s existence is verifiable in principle? What type of language is meaningful according to Wittgenstein? Name the philosopher who argued that religious and moral statements are meaningful because they regulate behaviour in society? According to Hume, what must one do with language that cannot be empirically tested? Complete this quote from Ayer: “No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess …”

Quiz #2 What is the title of Ayer’s book in which he wrote about the verification principle? What criteria must statements fulfil to be meaningful? What is weak verification and why did Ayer develop it? Apart from theists, name 2 other groups for whom religious statements would be meaningless according to the verification principle. Name the parable told by John Hick to illustrate eschatological verification. How does Keith Ward argue that God’s existence is verifiable in principle? What type of language is meaningful according to Wittgenstein? Name the philosopher who argued that religious and moral statements are meaningful because they regulate behaviour in society? According to Hume, what must one do with language that cannot be empirically tested? Complete this quote from Ayer: “No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess …”

Compare your score with your previous one. Quiz - Answers ‘Language, Truth and Logic’. Analytic, synthetic, mathematical or tautological Statements that are meaningful if they can be verified in principle. Ayer developed it to overcome the criticisms of historical being meaningless under the VP. Atheists and agnostics The road to the celestial city. He says that if he were God he could verify his own existence. Statements which can be reduced to a pictorial representation of a fact Braithwaite “Commit it then to the flames”. “… any literal significance.” Compare your score with your previous one. Have you improved?

Learning Check … By the end of today’s lesson you will: Have reinforced your knowledge and understanding of the verification principle. Know what the falsification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand the criticisms of the verification principle from: Hare Mitchell Swinburne

The Falsification Principle Sir Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994) Vienna Philosopher of science and professor at the London School of Economics Not verification, but falsification that is needed to test if a statement is meaningful …

The Falsification principle Key Term A statement is meaningful if it can be refuted (falsified) by experience, observation or empirical evidence. E.g. “All birds can fly.” For this statement to be meaningful we need to know what observation to make to falsify it (to prove it false). As this falsifying mechanism exists, the statement is meaningful.

Task Which of the following statements are meaningful and which are meaningless according to the falsification principle? All sheep are white. Stealing is wrong. God exists.

The Falsification Principle Antony Flew (1923-2010) British philosopher Influenced by Popper In the 1950s Flew applied the falsification principle to religious language. Conclusion: RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS ARE MEANINGLESS! Key Philosopher

Flew on Religious Language As a class, read Flew’s ideas on religious language in your workbook.

Flew on Religious Language Why does Flew argue that religious language is meaningless? Nothing can count against religious statements. Religious statements can neither be proved true (verified) or false - religious believers do not accept any evidence to count against (falsify) their beliefs.

Consolidation Tasks TASK 1 Read ‘Falsification’ on pages 19-20 of the Eduqas textbook. Add relevant information from your reading to your notes from today’s lesson. TASK 2: List 10 words you expect to hear in the following video of Flew’s Parable of the Jungle TASK 3: AO1 PEEL write-up: Explain why religious language is meaningless according to the falsification principle. You will need to: Explain what the FP is – what criteria makes a statement meaningful? Refer to key philosophers – especially Flew Use examples Include specialist vocabulary

Learning Check … By the end of today’s lesson you will: Have reinforced your knowledge and understanding of the verification principle. Know what the falsification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand the criticisms of the verification principle from: Hare Mitchell Swinburne

Criticisms of the Falsification Principle

Religious statements are non-cognitive Cognitive Claims which refer to matters of factual, objective truth Non-cognitive Non-factual claims. That which cannot be verified or falsified. E.g. E.g. Religious statements are non-cognitive. Their intention is not to contain facts, but they are still meaningful.

Criticisms of the Falsification Principle Swinburne; Mitchell; Hare Re-enact the story you have been given. What point is being made about religious language and the falsification principle? Evaluate – Does it work? Strengths/weaknesses Independently read all three stories and answer the questions.

Swinburne – Toys in the Cupboard (Example from Swinburne’s ‘Coherence of Theism’) Why can we not falsify the movement of the toys? They only dance about when no one is watching! Why would Swinburne argue that the idea of the toys moving is meaningful? Even if a statement cannot be falsified, we can still understand the meaning behind the statement. Does this work for religious language?

Mitchell – The partisan and the stranger Do you think that Mitchell’s story works as an effective analogy for the relationship between God and the believer?

Mitchell – The partisan and the stranger Despite evidence to the contrary, theists will believe and trust in God. Mitchell called these beliefs “articles of faith”, which the believer knows are open to challenge, but, because of his/her faith, will never allow the evidence to falsify their belief.

Mitchell – The partisan and the stranger Flew’s response to Mitchell: “I still think that in the end, if relentlessly pursued, he will have to resort to the avoiding action of qualification. And there lies that death by a thousand qualifications, which would … constitute a failure in faith as well as logic.”

Hare – University Student Religious statements are meaningful despite not making factual claims. How? They’re meaningful to the person who has a religious ‘blik’. Hare suggested that Flew makes a mistake by treating religious statements as though they are scientific explanations. Do you agree? Flew argued that Christianity is not a blik as it makes assertions e.g. ‘God made human beings distinct from other species’. Christians are not just claiming that this is a blik. They are saying that God really did this – thus its meaningfulness can be tested using the FP.

Hare – University Student Evaluation of Hare Strengths: People do evaluate the world from a particular ‘blik’. The religious ‘blik’ allows the believer to see evidence where a sceptic may not. Religious statements are not assertions at all, and therefore are immune to verification and falsification. Hare suggested that Flew makes a mistake by treating religious statements as though they are scientific explanations. Do you agree? Religious people see the world a certain way, and from within that perspective all sorts of things count as evidence for God: a beautiful sunset, a flock of geese, the ‘miracle’ of birth, and so on.

Hare – University Student Evaluation of Hare Weaknesses: Paranoia is not a flattering analogy to religious belief. By claiming that religious statements are not assertions of fact, Hare seems to be weakening the important claims that believers make. How? Flew argued that Christianity is not a blik as it makes assertions e.g. ‘God made human beings distinct from other species’. Christians are not just claiming that this is a blik. They are saying that God really did this – thus its meaningfulness can be tested using the FP. Do you agree with Flew?

Consolidation Questions What is the falsification principle? Name the scientist who influenced Antony Flew’s ideas on the falsification principle. How does Flew’s jungle parable support his belief that statements about God are meaningless. BONUS: Give a quote from Flew to support this. How does Mitchell challenge Flew’s understanding of statements from religious believers? What does Hare mean by a ‘blik’ and how does this challenge the falsification principle? Which philosopher has the strongest argument? Justify your opinion.

Learning Check … By the end of today’s lesson you will: Have reinforced your knowledge and understanding of the verification principle. Know what the falsification principle is and understand why it would deem religious and ethical language as meaningless. Understand the criticisms of the verification principle from: Hare Mitchell Swinburne

Plenary – Confidence Wheel Are you feeling more confident with section B of Theme 4 philosophy after today’s lesson? Colour in additional segments on your confidence wheel to reflect progress in your confidence.

‘Examine the criticisms against the falsification principle’ (20) Intro: Explain what the falsification principle is. Popper / Flew / Meaning / Tools / Qualifications / Jungle / Dies a death of qualifications Richard Swinburne’s toys in the cupboard: Explain what Swinburne’s analogy is and WHY is criticises the falsification principle. Toys / Imagine / Understand / Meaning / God Mitchell’s partisan to a stranger: Explain what Mitchells ‘resistance fighter’ analogy is. Faith / explanation for bad things / greater good / partisan fighting for stranger – stranger has faith in partisan Hare’s Bliks: Explain Hare’s concept of religion as a ‘blik’. Perspective / student / paranoid / dons / meaning / viewpoints aren’t meant to be a factual claim Cognitive and non-cognitive: Religious language isn’t’ meant to be facts and held to scientific scrutiny