Essay
'Religious language is meaningless' Assess. - Religious language AQA A level philosophy essay 25/25 A*
- Vak
- Instelling
'Religious language is meaningless' Assess. - Religious language AQA A level philosophy essay - MARKED 25/25 A*
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 1 van de 4 pagina's
Voorbeeld 1 van de 4 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
miaapfel
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
‘Religious language is meaningless’ Assess (25)In this essay, I will strongly argue that religious language can be seen as being meaningful,
but only when considered in a non-cognitive (not truth-apt) sense. I will discuss and reject
Ayer and Flew’s arguments for why religious language is meaningless on the basis that they
are cognitive in their approach. Whilst I will consider Hick’s ‘eschatological verification’ as an
argument for why religious language is meaningful, I will reject it in favour of Hare’s
non-cognitive argument, which is a more successful approach because it implies that
religious claims can be both unfalsifiable and still meaningful.
The main factor which distinguishes Hare’s successful argument from the weaker arguments
of Ayer and Flew is that it is non-cognitive. Cognitivist accounts of religious language argue
that expressions of beliefs about the world can be true or false (are truth-apt), whilst
non-cognitivist accounts argue that expressions of mental states are not making a claim
about the world (and are neither true or false) and so only meaningful in that they express
some other type of mental state, such as values, attitudes or ways of seeing. For example, a
cognitivist would argue that ‘God exists’ is the claim that there is a God that exists
independently in the world, and reasons can be given to support this claim. In contrast, a
non-cognitivist may interpret ‘God exists’ as an expression of a commitment to a certain set
of values and a way of living, which I would argue is more suitable considering the personal
and subjective experiences of religious believers.
One issue with religious language is that of the logical positivists (of the Vienna Circle in the
twentieth century), who argued that knowledge should be built on a basis of verifiable facts.
Ayer developed his own version of logical positivism and applied his 'verification principle' to
religious language in order to show that it is meaningless. The verification principle states
that a sentence is meaningful if and only if: it is an analytic truth (it is true by definition) or if it
is empirically verifiable (in practice according to the strong version of the principle, or in
principle according to the weak version). Armed with his Verification Principle, Ayer argues
that although claims of religious language such as ‘God loves me’ or ‘God answers my
prayers’ appear to be meaningful, they are not - they are pseudo-statements lacking any
factual significance (a sentence is factually significant if we know what observations in the
world would lead us to accept the proposition as true, or false). This is because religious
language makes claims about metaphysical entities like ‘God’ and ‘Heaven’ which lie beyond
experience and observation, and these claims cannot be verified, nor are they true by
definition. In this way, Ayer suggests that religious language is meaningless because it does
not meet the two conditions which he sets out, and thus fails the verification principle.
However, I would argue the immediate issues with Ayer’s verification principle mean that we
cannot coherently use it to test whether religious language is meaningful or meaningless.
Ayer’s principle fails its own criteria of meaning because his claim that "a statement is only
meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable" is not true by definition and it is not
empirically verifiable, therefore, according to its own conditions, it is itself meaningless. If the
principle upon which Ayer bases his argument is in itself flawed, then this would imply that
his reasoning for why religious language is meaningful is also flawed, and thus should be
rejected.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper miaapfel. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,92. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 75323 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen