Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God. Several different approaches are used to provide a very strong argument for the
“Religious Language is meaningless” Analyse and evaluate this claim with reference to the verification and falsification debates. (35 marks) Religious Language is language used to talk about God and other religious beliefs. Religious language is known to be cognitive as it can make a positive statement be proved true or false. However on the other hand, Religious language could be seen as non-cognitive as some statements could be misinterpreted, for example, majority rather than a minority in some cases could act out religious and cultural beliefs within society. The verification principle had originated from philosophers in a group called ‘The Vienna Circle” where they believed that dome statements were meaningful and some simply were not, they distinguished these statements by coming up with a theory called, The verification principle.
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
The act was created to protect children and Templeman regarded the arguments on the words ‘is suffering’ as a distraction from the aim. ‘This is an example of judicial practicality and desire to see justice down’ . This case illustrates that the ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation do not have to be followed exactly and are merely guidelines. Lord Templeman states that the rules of interpretation have ‘an aura of scientific authenticity about them when the reality is that interpreting any document is more of an art than a science’ . In other words, the rules can only be guidelines because judges will clearly have different interpretations.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.). In order for empirical knowledge to have real meaning, it must be combined with rationalism. Rational reasoning and empirical methods together are the basis for the scientific method (Jackson, 2009). The Scientific
Philosophers like Moritz Schlick and others who were supporters of the verification principle, believed that the meaningless of a statement is shown by the way in which you verify it. A.J. Ayer distinguished between two different types of verification. Strong verification and weak verification. Strong verification refers to statements which are directly verifiable, that is, a statement can be shown to be correct by way of empirical observation.
Descartes' argument in the Meditations is circular. Discuss. In trying to prove the existence of God, Descartes will, of course, have to rely on what he can clearly and distinctly perceive, because this is the only way he can know anything. However, Descartes also needs to prove that God exists for us to know what we clearly and distinctly perceive. This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular.
These theories are motivated by diverse concerns and proposed accounts so different from each other that one wonder if they seek to explain the same phenomenon. Coherence theory The coherence theory of truth states that a statement is considered true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs. This is basically saying that a belief is false if it contradicts other beliefs that are held to be true. The coherence theories in general, states that truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other.