Why would the vienna circle argue that religious language is meaningless
There is no way to prove it
Not everyone can take part
Different religions will have their own kind of anguage
Cognitivism claims what about religous statements
they can be true or false, statements express propositions and religous language makes claims about the world
all language has meaning
all language is an expression of emotion
what is an analytical statement
a sentence which is true by definition
a sentence which is true through verification
a sentence which is untrue
what type of statement would this be mr miles has six car
synthetic
analytical
meaningless
AJ ayer believed that there was strong verification which was verified in practice and verified in theory which requires no evidence.
Which of these is an advantage for the verification principle
It is not just an argument against God as according to the theory atheists and agnostics
Aj Ayer stated that weak verification principle
Scientific laws become meaningless
Some religous statements might be verifiable in principle, such as biblical events
Swinburne argued universal statements cannot be verified so meaningless yet we would agree '
What did Richard Swinburne argue
Any language is meaningful
all universal statements can't be verified
all language is meaningless as it is just opinion
AJ Ayers version of the verification principle was considered an improvement over the Vienna circle due to the fact that he claimed that we can actually verify through a limited amount of evidence and do not need a physical observation
Hick claimed that in fact religious statements are not meaningless due to what reason
It is entierly subjective
there is no way to verify athiesim
these statements could be verified in the after life
Why did flew object to religous language
He did not believe in God
He felt that anything that could be disproved is not valid
He felt that scientific terminology was more accurate
Mitchell argued that in fact Flew was correct
What is the Via Negitiva
The idea that God should never be spoken about negatively
the theory we can only describe God in a negative way
The idea God can be described in both a negative and positive way
Some of the problems with religious language are that God is a . He also does not exist in or .
What two things is religious language considered to be
Imposible to prove or disprove
disregarding of science
inconsistent
not open to universal experience
Why is religious language seen as being incompatible with our understanding of the world
They describe concepts that exist separate from our world.
They are unclear on their aims
It often contradicts empirical evidence eg ressurection of jesus no human has ever been resurrected
