Religious Language for AQA Philosophy

how are they right so religious language this is my ultimate favorite thing were holes and so again how Isis requested this one so this is for you and I'm just going to work through this been watching a specification order and they're trying to slow down how fast I've talked and hopefully have a good sense so in order to get any of this you need two definitions of copper to visible cognitivism so cognitivism regarding religious language remember it's the same principle as what we do at the language so the cognitive perspective is that the religious language makes claims that can be true or false so the if Isis a God exists that can be true it can't be false it's making the claim about the way the world actually is and I'm expressing the belief about the way the world is the normative approach suggests that religious language is not doing that so if I say God exists I'm not making a claim about the way the world is I'm not making a claim about state affairs in the world and it's not subjective truth or falsity one dings I'm expressing something else a particular desire a particular commitment to a way of life or when we look at bacon Stein the idea of being committed to a particular form of life so what I want to start with there is the challenge by mjf so a JMS verification principle which again was something that applied to to ethical manage and this might be a logical positivism that just swept through so many areas of philosophy and the disciplines as well but if we take the verification support for a statement to being factually meaningful factoring significant it was either between my definition analytic or it must be verifiable I don't practice all your principle and in practice meaning even have you done that in principle the idea that potentially it could be I could give you a state of affairs where that could happen and very far it mean it doesn't have to be proving true it just means that sense evidence could contribute to the truth or falsity of that statement so if I say it's snowing outside it's not but that is a very viable saying because I could go outside I could get evidence in the sentences that will contribute to the truth or in this case falsity of that of that particular statement so let's take God exists context is not true by definition I can't analyze the term God and know that he exists unless you think not a logical argument but for now to speak no and it's not something that can be verified for the two sentences again disregarding the fact that you might believe that design is evident in sentences so what we've got here is we have a statement that is not factually significant it might be meaningful in other ways that are not factual so God exists for ajm it's meaningless it's not true and it's not false it doesn't you're not saying anything nice that God exists it's like nothing's coming out my mouth at all and it's not even worthy of defect so that had a huge huge implication for what we could discuss and debate in a meaningful way and it just swept aside for the gist language being factually the majority of there well all of it because everything stems from God exists and if God exists he's not fact to a significant nothing else's so he was a contest about edges language and statements should meaningful matter which has to make statements that are true or false and religious language it does neither now what then issue has kick now he because a lot he accepts that cognitivism he accepts that to be meaningful religious language was no claims about the world which are very fine and what he's gonna do it it's gonna show statements about religion are verifiable in principle so although I want if I say God so the lovely God treats visa father treats a child and none of this could be that we find now but it can be potential so that's what uni finished you celestial City hence life so YouTube travelers are going down with this particular path the same path and they go through the same things but they experience them very very differently on the basis that one of the travelers believes this won't leads to a celestial city and the other doesn't so the one traveler say look this tough bit of theme of the path is a test and this really nice bit of pacifism rewards and we'll get to this Leicester city will be welcomed by the king and it'll be great and the other guy said that doesn't think anywhere so enjoy the little bit energy over that bits but it doesn't mean anything so what they're doing is they go through making statements about what they're experiencing and experiencing in very different ways obviously these two trans folks don't believe a non-believer or the non-believer and then you've got this path being life and they they claim there's a heaven at the end of it now God loves me and is rewarding me God is testing me God is punishing me none of this is verifiable now if you get that end point and there is a celestial City and there is a God then that is going to be retrospectively very hard now we call that eschatological verification this idea of verification at death after this life so what he's saying is it's a except in consu ISM and Hicks a them I can I can verify these things I'm saying potential in the end of life if there is no never it's not falsifiable we can't show the the other person who was there heaven is going to be is correct because that's the end of things because it are that there's no afterlife because you're dead so that that can't happen so for some people think that falsification is important then this still would not make religious land to me so that would lead us nicely onto the parables and in the 1950s in this parable Germans will do first it is gorgeous debate between flew hair mixture and then at the end flew wraps it up with another post article if you like and it's just sort of most gorgeous things and it's very difficult for me as well not to get bogged down in the actual power bills themselves and just be careful what you watch you understand what points being made now flu kick this off by referring to the powerful by John wisdom and if I'm just going to give you a bit of arithmetic what's going on here you've got these two channels and they come across a tree and in these clearings there are some folks imagine that there was some really nice kind of flowers appear to being some kind of order to be planted in particular way maybe some weeds as well but the first traffic sex on as a gardener who can't attendance and the second traffic says will not other thing there is and the first chocolate system image that definitely answer they wait and they wait I've no gardener they're cops so the first the second person says sake talk to there's no gardener but the original person says there is he's just intangible in a he doesn't make any sound he doesn't leave any smell so what they do is they they did tests so they said well it's late and set up some electric fences no God makes any kind of detection honest what about some dogs did he take a step not nothing so what happens is the first person keeps qualifying a qualifying statement so instead of saying are actually right there was no garden and say yeah there's a gardener but he has no scent he makes nice illusionary tricks and instead of just kind of saying I was wrong he quantifiers and change to change the statement and the second person ends up getting really frustrated and say okay tell me the difference between this invisible intangible gardener who never leaves any scent that makes me sound and you have no detection of him and no gardener at all what is the difference and he throws up his hands in frustration is at what would have to occur for you to say wrong and that there's no garner and there isn't anything nothing potentially predict home now what this boils down to is that the statement that garden exists is unfalsifiable there is no state of affairs with which it is incompatible so to get my dear falsification for something to be falsifiable you have to have a state of affairs in which what you say is incompatible which you show that actually is wrong now you might believe that that will never ever happen but you still have to entertain me on that we've been so what the you've got and I know this but this puts people off and I find this really helpful so don't get upset that you look like that if I make a proposition cake it's equivalent to minus minus thing so what I'm doing is if I say it's raining outside that is equivalent to it's not true that it's not raining on site so if I'm making a proposition whether I know it or not I'm also denying it's negative so really if I'm saying it's raining outside I'm denying that it's not raining outside I ought to be able to show you all at least explain to you what mine is a ping would be like so however cooking style that it's raining outside if you were to take outside and there's no main then I would give up that claim what happens with religious belief often is they make the proposition God loves me as a father as a child for example but what you don't have is any acknowledgment of what - people look like so for me to legitimately and being in a meaningful way to state that God loves them I'm also saying it's not true that God what we've got God not doesn't me look like and you're gonna just believe we're off to say I would not entertain a possibility so what if there was a tsunami what if we family done yeah it doesn't matter whatever happens I will still maintain that God loves me so that statement it's unfalsifiable all that happens is you're gonna qualify the statement so what fluency state but they're just believing some same probabilities the Father loves a child yet feminine prayers opposite uh yeah but God works in mysterious ways and all your family has been killed in a tsunami yeah but God's testing me and you've just lost your home job and everything else as well yeah but maybe that's just to show that I can develop my soul and what what exactly would have to happen for you to give it back home if it's nothing if you can't entertain your possibility it might appear that you're not saving them so flu season is an article about starts of big bold looks like a meaningful assertion surface what we call death by the facts or modifications and that the first excreting nasty form of Japanese torture where you don't kill something out rights you cut them bit by bit until slowly they lead to death so with this statement it's not that you just come out as a narc yeah actually God doesn't exist you just chip away at it yeah but this but that but that you qualify under qualify into what seemed like a big bold hypothesis about where the world is ends up meaning that you're not saying anything it's really and that's a really kind of cool excess now so what we've got here then is fluid opting cognitivism and falsifiability as a proof support of meaning holding up religious language to it and saying religious language fails it doesn't need to one could introduce you to now please her and the lunatics to do so this was the next one of hang on now it depends what you read I'm going to say that basically there's a bit more debate into it but I'm going to say that what he does is he absolutely accept that religious I'm just on falsifiable Roy doesn't accept is it that's a criteria or criteria for me so a statement can be unfalsifiable but still meaningful because it affects your life so what the picture that ever happens is this idea of a lunatic student at Oxford and obviously they've got all the professor's darling so what you've got is this lunatic student believes all the dots are out to kill and it doesn't matter what you do what you show all he does is interpret ever any experience he has in the light of that belief that the dogs about to kill so if you showed the kindest nicest doll and he's he goes when I've got the tea with him inside yeah but that's a part of diabolical cunning he's just loving beings or false sense of security because we wants to kill me doesn't matter what you do it's all interpreted in the light of that belief now what he doesn't introduces this term belief and a blip is unquestionable unfounded belief isn't it you cannot shake it but it what it does is it it shapes all your experiences so if you've got the blimp that word on semantics for you that hasn't come from sense experience it's not it's not grounded in sense experience therefore it will not be changed but by sense experience however all the sense experience you have will be interpreted in the light of that blink so it's like having a pair of spectacles on and everything is flutter to through so you never really just believe that could be a blink now the Blitz going to the unfalsifiable the religious belief is not going to be something will ever be even potentially give it up it may not have even been founded on Sense experience so sense experience it's not changer so the person has a religious blink is going to see that signal and not have their big ulcers they're going to say oh that's a test from God because it's interpreted in the light of that blink it doesn't mean that religious language is meanings it's very very meaningful think how meaningful that beliefs that April had on to have to kill him is to that student so it's meaningful in a different way of non-cognitive his way not as a set of beliefs about the way the world is but rather as something exchange you're very experienced and absolutely meaningful he talks about to say anything st. Blake's which are probably won't go into now but we will have links and if you'll sat down on a chair to watch this you didn't question went that chance and I hope you won't be able to believe in material objects and properties that we don't question every day it's really she was saying insanely well that's debatable the third contributor text events was was Mitchell and what that'll Mitchell did is he said okay he actually dr. Compton ISM he actually says that religious language is falsifiable and that's how he differs from from the flu but he said you don't have to specify what conditions would occur in order for you to give up that particular belief in also so it's very very meaningful is often grounded as well so what we were is we've got a problem at the party sounds and stranger parties and being somebody who was fighting for the French Resistance during the war not a baker okay to enjoy for my students that's a participate it's a bakery and so we're talking about a stranger here and a party sound here we need hence the so this stranger who meets with the partisan and really impress his pocket the strength of partisans completely convinced the stranger is on my side so they're just statement adjustable of self belief the stranger is on my side off the stranger goings the evidence is really then ambiguous so sometimes it appears it the stranger it is on his side sometimes it appears to be consorting at the end now he knows that it's a spy so I'll codes never have to do that a little bit but at what point do you say okay actually I'm going to take away this with it for the part that the strategies on my side what you've got that it's going snap you've got a belief the strangers on my side which is an article effect you've got mounting for it you've got a Mitchell meeting in which the structure will impress the parties on you've got ambiguous evidence you've got an on determined to that because evidence you've got the fact that that evidence gets so bad that their belief would actually be given up but the partisan doesn't have to specify exactly what would happen now you just have to say okay as soon as that happens I'm gonna give up that belief so if we plant up to the logistic God God is on our side let's just end a sentence that what is on our side usually grounded it's something happening which is experienced it could be reading a holy book the religious believe it doesn't have to be blind to the fact that the evidence is ambiguous yeah that stuff happens yes not every prayer gets answered though the belief could potentially be falsifiable so they wouldn't just believe them I get to the point where they lose their faith and many do this is the point they just believe often has been falsified for many people know just too too many bad things happening that is like that this i can't win tend to believe but they believe it you don't have to pin the believer down same specify exactly what would happen once you are meeting any and god no and you're done they don't have to do that and that's quite a nice way leaders belief against flu does wrap up the the debate at the end is it's really beautiful them I mean he does actually mention at some point the idea of a dying child and the father and it says that if you take an earthly father and an earthly father would be so distraught if their child was dying but he's example my inoperable three counts they we do anything to to make them well and yet Heavenly Father you use this word father but he has the power to stop that and he doesn't what exactly do you mean by the word father what is this language actually saying because I was 7,000 and that's that's quite powerful that leads into the problem of evil and just on that night as well he used the term of doublethink from George Orwell's 1984 the ability to make himself believe two contradictory beliefs at the same time and he says that religious belief may well be forced into double think in order to reconcile their belief in God with the existence of the world which is very powerful watching so what I want to finish off with some thickness time and you don't you can use thickness on he's not mentioned on the spec but we do need to know the non-cognitive is to approach beacon stylus is kind of amazing and I won't go to the background and how it changed his original view which is common to misty non-confidence but he uses this idea of and performs of life and we're all part of this and a form of life that pops in many forms of life lots of different rules for how we can use language within and I'm very simplifying this horrific case of please pickle some experts millions watching us detect my apologies but if we just take the ideas of a religious form of life which may contain religious language games and a language game is about how we use language in a particular situation so example if I was using the word can and on so far I would use cow in that particular language vector means something if I'm talking about somebody I don't like that I'm using them and of different different moves so if I was a farmer and I say oh that's a cat might say no it's not because it's a sheep and particularly difficult a different genetic organism if I was talking to about my friend warned about the fact that I if I still eventually somebody I didn't like I said how man that such a can you wouldn't say genetically they're not because I'm not using it in that particular way it's a different way now if I need to put food for vegan style within the religious language go religion is not a theory it's not a set of states of statements about the way the world is it's a way of life it's a commitment to a particular way of life it's a way of viewing the world so God exists it's not feeling now if I take if I take for example using the word exists the Loch Ness monster if you say the Loch Ness monster exists and I say that it doesn't we can have a discussion about that because we are actually using the words of the same when we are playing the same language and we could actually agree on what constituted evidence let's drain the knock and you know we could actually agree what those words mean if I say God exists and you say it doesn't then we can't have that discussion because we're not actually playing the same language yet we wouldn't agree on what constituted evidence so so they are incompatible now what he was saying well think of something to say about ajá coming along and saying oh I know but it just won't reduce meaningless because you're not it's not verifiable he wants a long game aja because that idea of verifiability applies to certain animal traps but not to the religious language yeah it's like me being a football players and once that would be cleared in picking up a ball well I haven't understood the rules of the game I'd like to tell that person how they should be playing so if I have to say in silence Oh they put them together for massive explosion and you would say can you give me any verification of the housing that a car okay and what if you were to put those chemicals together and they didn't explode would you still believe that nothing yet absolutely I would still believe it then you'd be quite like to say that I'm not actually saying anything meaningful because within that language game the verification is important however if I have to say God exists and God bless this afar molester child and it concerns to say that's part of that religious language yet from someone says yeah but what would have to occur for you to give that up allowed to say nothing and what if there's a tsunami would you still believe it yes I would then I don't have the viable anyone who'd just have the vibe to say that you're all talking in a meaningless way so for Finkelstein the religious man he suspends himself from heaven and imagine something dangled upside down and I just look at everything differently the whole world looks different and it's so meaningful but in an oncologist way because I'm not making kinds about the way the world is it's not theory so there's a number of things you can you can do this I quite like as an SI plan some kind of challenge like verification answering that challenge like pick celestial City and rejecting the whole principle like some kind of non context approach equally you can do that falsification here's police challenge and religious lambdas on the 45 and therefore meaningful here's response to it but actually people do falsely by Dean forces why the glitches like that you get their faith why not just which add the whole thing I don't know cognitivism instead so even at my speed of talking that's quite long so thank you for listening I hope it helps any feedback gratefully received and please let me know how to you

Channel: Sally Latham

Views: 827

Rating: 5 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: GdgcVPQPw4w

Length: 22min 34sec (1354 seconds)

Published: Mon May 20 2019