[LeahCarmel]

Yeah, swinburne believes there is two types of RE, public and private.

Public: 1. God's action (sunset), 2. defying laws of nature
Private: 1. experiences can be described through language, 2. experiences that cant be described through language and the constant feeling of the presence of God.

[LeahCarmel]

Hmmm, not sure, we've just been taught the two types of language are cognitive and non-cognitive. :/

[headbands,]

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
Yeah, swinburne believes there is two types of RE, public and private.

Public: 1. God's action (sunset), 2. defying laws of nature
Private: 1. experiences can be described through language, 2. experiences that cant be described through language and the constant feeling of the presence of God.

Yes I know what you mean now Sorry haha mental block

[IDukem]

(Original post by headbands,)
But still I don't understand how this is a type of language? It is just a critique of religious language?

It's a critque of religious language because the verification principle by Ayer is stating that unless you can empirically verify somethings existence then it is meaningless. For example, the religious language of myth is meaningless because you can't prove that the story happened through your senses.

Criticisms of the Verification principle could be that you can't verify the verification principle itself, love is apparently meaningless as you can't verify it's existence because it's a feeling within and not from your senses, historical documents is meaningless because you can't prove that Napoleon 1st was real although there were records of his existence.

The verification principle is helpful for implications as well.

[LeahCarmel]

(Original post by IDukem)
It's a critque of religious language because the verification principle by Ayer is stating that unless you can empirically verify somethings existence then it is meaningless. For example, the religious language of myth is meaningless because you can't prove that the story happened through your senses.

Criticisms of the Verification principle could be that you can't verify the verification principle itself, love is apparently meaningless as you can't verify it's existence because it's a feeling within and not from your senses, historical documents is meaningless because you can't prove that Napoleon 1st was real although there were records of his existence.

The verification principle is helpful for implications as well.

For that final point about Napoleon, you can bring in the strong and weak forms of verfication principle as a response to that criticism.

[IDukem]

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
For that final point about Napoleon, you can bring in the strong and weak forms of verfication principle as a response to that criticism.

I'm trying to remember the strong and weak forms of the verification principle. Could you tell me please? I remember that when Ayer introduced the verification principle, he had so many flaws that he changed/added to it but i can't remember what.

[LeahCarmel]

(Original post by IDukem)
I'm trying to remember the strong and weak forms of the verification principle. Could you tell me please? I remember that when Ayer introduced the verification principle, he had so many flaws that he changed/added to it but i can't remember what.

Basically he produced the strong and weak to allow historical events and such to become meaningful. The strong form states that an assertion is only meaningful if it came be empirically verfied and the weak form states for an assertion to be true, one must state what kind of evidence would verify it's contents. Then this can be linked to that the verification principle can not itself be verified so Ayer eventually rejected it.

[IDukem]

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
Basically he produced the strong and weak to allow historical events and such to become meaningful. The strong form states that an assertion is only meaningful if it came be empirically verfied and the weak form states for an assertion to be true, one must state what kind of evidence would verify it's contents. Then this can be linked to that the verification principle can not itself be verified so Ayer eventually rejected it.

Would photographs and documents be evidence for weak form of the verification principle?

[headbands,]

(Original post by IDukem)
It's a critque of religious language because the verification principle by Ayer is stating that unless you can empirically verify somethings existence then it is meaningless. For example, the religious language of myth is meaningless because you can't prove that the story happened through your senses.

Criticisms of the Verification principle could be that you can't verify the verification principle itself, love is apparently meaningless as you can't verify it's existence because it's a feeling within and not from your senses, historical documents is meaningless because you can't prove that Napoleon 1st was real although there were records of his existence.

The verification principle is helpful for implications as well.

I understand the verification principle 100% but what I don't understand is how it can be classed as a type of religious language?

[LeahCarmel]

(Original post by IDukem)
Would photographs and documents be evidence for weak form of the verification principle?

Yeah, I'm guessing so. We were never given examples but that seems logical.

[LeahCarmel]

(Original post by headbands,)
I understand the verification principle 100% but what I don't understand is how it can be classed as a type of religious language?

You don't need to classify it as a type of religious language. But, considering the verification principle believes you have to empirically verify statements for them to be meangingful, it technically falls under non-cognitive language, which is a type of religious language.

[IDukem]

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
Yeah, I'm guessing so. We were never given examples but that seems logical.

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
You don't need to classify it as a type of religious language. But, considering the verification principle believes you have to empirically verify statements for them to be meangingful, it technically falls under non-cognitive language, which is a type of religious language.

Falsification is in the non-cognitive language too right?

[LeahCarmel]

(Original post by IDukem)
Falsification is in the non-cognitive language too right?

Yeah, I think so.

[IDukem]

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
Yeah, I think so.

Okay cool, thank you for your help!

[LeahCarmel]

(Original post by IDukem)
Okay cool, thank you for your help!

No problem! Good luck to you and all for the exam tomorrow!

[headbands,]

(Original post by LeahCarmel)
You don't need to classify it as a type of religious language. But, considering the verification principle believes you have to empirically verify statements for them to be meangingful, it technically falls under non-cognitive language, which is a type of religious language.

I am so confused still
Religious language is non cognitive which is; analogy, myth, symbol (language games defends this)
Those against religious language include verification (Ayer) and falsification (Flew) they are not types of religious language themselves they are not concerned with talkjing about God and his nature ect? They just deny religious language
Sorry if I sound really dumb, I just don't understand the point your making :/

[julia154]

(Original post by headbands,)
I am so confused still
Religious language is non cognitive which is; analogy, myth, symbol (language games defends this)
Those against religious language include verification (Ayer) and falsification (Flew) they are not types of religious language themselves they are not concerned with talkjing about God and his nature ect? They just deny religious language
Sorry if I sound really dumb, I just don't understand the point your making :/

I'm a little confused too. Why is Verification/falsification non-cognitive? Aren't they based on facts and the senses?

[IDukem]

(Original post by julia154)
I'm a little confused too. Why is Verification/falsification non-cognitive? Aren't they based on facts and the senses?

(Original post by headbands,)
I am so confused still
Religious language is non cognitive which is; analogy, myth, symbol (language games defends this)
Those against religious language include verification (Ayer) and falsification (Flew) they are not types of religious language themselves they are not concerned with talkjing about God and his nature ect? They just deny religious language
Sorry if I sound really dumb, I just don't understand the point your making :/

Non-cognitive is to do with your senses and emotions and the verification principle is about using your senses to verify things so there are links. I understand the cognitive, non-cognitive verification and falsification stuff but it's confusing when you mix the four together.

Question wise, I'm hoping for a question part A that is along the lines of 'How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless?'

[Timetogo]

Hey anybody else stressed now that the exam is tomorrow. :s
I'm doing philosophy of religion but not ethics, we're doing new testament for that part
Just wondering what thoughts are on the life after death question? Should I p,at it safe and revise ontological as well? (even though it might not come up )
Good luck though to everyone

[julia154]

(Original post by IDukem)
Non-cognitive is to do with your senses and emotions and the verification principle is about using your senses to verify things so there are links. I understand the cognitive, non-cognitive verification and falsification stuff but it's confusing when you mix the four together.

Question wise, I'm hoping for a question part A that is along the lines of 'How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless?'

Ok I think I understand, so it's non-cognitive because in theory an avid supporter of that which is cognitive would say, for example, you can't just rely on your senses? Something like that?
Yeah that'd be a blessing of a question. My back up is ethical language if religious language is an awful question but in honesty I don't feel like I know that well enough to answer a question on it.