Tag: Revision

Posted on

2009 Specimen paper – Religious language

a) i) Explain what is meant by verification and falsification in the context of religious language. [18]
ii) Evaluate their criticisms of religious language. [12]

 

i) The verification principle was dreamed up by the Logical Positivists to support their claim that religious language is meaningless. The idea is that unless an assertion or claim can be verified by one or more of the five senses then it is unverifiable. They went on to divide statements into 3 groups: either analytic (true by definition e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men), synthetic (verifiable by testing e.g. it is raining outside) or mathematic (2+2 = 4.)

This principle was then appealed to when assessing the meaningfulness of theists’ statements or assertions about God. For example the claim ‘God exists’ falls into none of the categories of meaningful statements and is therefore regarded as meaningless. Likewise to suggest that ‘God loves me’ is not verifiable either.

AJ Ayer for the LPs soon realised that historical statements also became meaningless if the principle were applied so rigorously and formulated the ‘weak verification principle.’ By which he acknowledged that for historical claims it is sufficient to call a statement like ‘Harold was shot inn the eye by an arrow at the Battle of Hastings’ verifiable if, in the event that we had access to a time machine and were able to go back to the event, we would be able to discover for ourselves whether or not the claim was true.

Anthony Flew also in response to the critics of the verification principle proposed the falsification principle. In it he suggested that a claim can be deemed to be verifiable if we can discover what might actually make it false. For example we cannot actually prove that we cannot travel faster than light so if we can discover what might make the claim false (like discovering that there are things which travel faster than the speed of light) then the claim becomes meaningful. (Not necessarily true but meaningful!!)

Unfortunately he realised that believers were not very likely to give any regard to evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. The story of Job in the Bible is a good example of a man who believed god loved him despite all evidence to the contrary when he lost his wife, family, health, home, livelihood – everything except his life, yet still he believed. This, Flew said, was what made religious claims so meaningless! He updated John Wisdom’s ‘Parable of the Gardener’ adding in a detailed list of all the traps that the two explorers set to trip up the so-called Gardener. When he set none of them off the theist refused to entertain the notion that he didn’t exist and the atheist in despair asked ‘but what is the difference between a gardener who is invisible, intangible and undetectable and no gardener at all?’ Obviously the comparison is with God. As Basil Mitchell put it the believer has three choices when faced with evidence which challenges their faith: adapt their beliefs to accommodate the new information; reject the new info out of hand or reject the belief.

{{ put it this way – you believe your husband loves you; your best friend says she saw him with another woman do you a) refuse to believe it b) face him and forgive him or c) throw him out!!?}}

But for believers who won’t allow any evidence to count against the existence of god makes their claim that God exists meaningless.

 

ii) One of the most obvious flaws in the verification principle is that it doesn’t allow for claims such as emotional ones: ‘I love him’; opinions: ‘that is a great work of art;’ statements of intent: ‘I had intended to come to school to do my timed essay but I had a cold…’ and many others, although the falsification principle can render some of them meaningful if we can ascertain what might count as evidence against them. (For example if I run into you in the pub and you are hale and hearty!!!)

But rather more importantly the claims of a believer even that they ‘just know’ God exists are not so easily rendered meaningless because they have an importance in their life. They may live their life by a particular code or creed based on an ‘unverifiable’ belief. It is not meaningless to them. RM Hare illustrates this idea with his concept of bliks. These are beliefs which are unverifiable and sometimes paradoxical but which nevertheless dictate our behaviour. He gives the example of ‘the Paranoid student and the Dons’ in which he describes the odd behaviour of a student who believed, against all his friends attempt to dissuade him, that the university dons were attempting to kill him. His behaviour was completely dominated by this unfounded belief. A bit like if you are afraid of spiders no amount of people telling you they won’t hurt you will prevent you checking the room before you go to sleep at night!! It might be meaningless or incomprehensible to an arachnophile but not to you!!

Ultimately of course Ayer retracted his position on the verification principle realising that there was a lot more to language than he had allowed for originally. Wittgenstein even invented a whole new area which he called language games theory in which he suggested that you had to know the rules in order to play the game – a bit like cricket then! But once you did know the rules you were unlikely to find them meaningless, indeed they are likely to enhance your enjoyment of the game. The same is true of religious language – you have to be in it to understand it and once you are you are unlikely to be just a neutral observer.

Posted on

Philosophy A2 Exam Papers and mark scheme

2003

1 a) Analyse the key concepts of religious experience as an argument for the existence of God. [12]

Concept of religious exp; analogy between a range of human experiences and religious exp and principles of credulity and testimony; why this may be a reasonable and simple explanation. Accounts of religious exp only will have a ceiling of 8 marks if no focus on thrust of question.

 

b) Evaluate the view that this argument supports the probability of the existence of God. [8]

Weaknesses of argument such as supposed parallels between religious exp and other types; a consideration of the problems of interpretation as untrustworthy and alternative interpretation; evaluation of responses to criticisms with an understanding of the notion of probability in this context.

 

2 a) Explain the major features of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. [12]

Could include a focus on one major example; understanding of the distinctive features of a priori reasoning with clarification of key terms and stages in this argument such as different notions of existence including necessary existence.

(2002 atheist’s understanding of God; difference between existence in mind and reality; necessary existence)

 

b) To what extent do the strengths of this argument overcome its weaknesses? [8]

Various examples such as the senses of existence and different interpretation of key terms including God, together with an assessment of responses to such criticisms and their strengths or otherwise.

 

3 “It is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence.”

Analyse and discuss this claim with reference to the non-existence of God and critiques of religious belief. [20]

What place does evidence have in belief systems; could use psychological or sociological explanations; critical appraisal of religious belief in history and society in which they lack foundation in evidence. Questions the role of evidence in some arguments for the existence of God including the ontological argument and any rebuttal of religious belief.

 

4 a) Compare and contrast TWO of the following:

i) reincarnation

ii) rebirth

iii) resurrection

iv) immortality of the soul [12]

Analysis of significant parallels and major differences and emphases with appropriate reference to specific religious traditions and scholars.

 

b) Consider critically arguments against belief in life after death. [8]

E.g. Behaviourist account of human nature; problems of language and evidence in this debate.

 

2002

1 a) see above 2003 no 2a     [12]

b) To what extent if any is this argument a proof of the existence of God? [8]

Clarify proof and implications in this context, significance of deductive reasoning; weaknesses and strengths such as ideas about definition of God an notions of existence and necessary existence.

 

2 a) “Religious experience presents a convincing argument for the existence of God.”

Analyse this claim. [12]

Requires argument and not just accounts. Similarities of principle of credulity in empirical context transferred to claims about experience of God including ideas about testimony.

b) Discuss criticisms of this argument.     [8]

Reasons to doubt notions of credulity and testimony such as their applicability to religion; issues about the interpretation of experience; alternative explanations to religious experiences.

 

3 a) Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death. [10]

contextual beliefs providing a rationale to support the claims of these beliefs, could be Theological and /or philosophical; implications of selected beliefs about God in this context; hick and the replica theory; arguments against could include conceptual problems in belief in life after death including problems of whether language is at all appropriate in this context; difficulties with the supposed incoherence of some concepts associated e.g. with dualism.

 

b) Define ONE of the following and evaluate its distinctive contributions to debates about life after death. [10]

Clear understanding of the distinctive features of the selected concept, may draw upon selected philosophers; reasons employed to argue the case that the selected term is valid and convincing; evaluation may include the cogency of this term in its belief system.

 

4 a) Differentiate agnosticism from atheism [4]

Could include ideas about the different interpretation of each of these terms.

 

b) Examine either the verification or the falsification debate and evaluate it as a critique of religious belief. [16]

E.g. logical positivism with selecte4d reference to key contributors; evaluation as critique of religious belief with implications about e.g. the meaningless nature of religious language

with dire consequences for religious belief; no evidence to falsify a belief in a benevolent God with the implications of the meaningless nature of such a belief; implications for agnostic and atheistic language and its supposed meaninglessness in this context; possibly also contentious nature of this as a basis of a theory of meaning.