Religious language is meaningless, Discuss - A-Level Religious

Religious Language is meaningless

In the debate about religious language, it is important that broadly speaking, there are two types of language, cognitive and non-cognitive.Religious language has not become totally isolated so there must be a common ground between religious language and other language games.

Gcse aqa english language paper 1 8700 - Religious language is meaningless essay

there must be a gardener who comes to tend the clearing. Statements only have meaning if there is nothing which can count against the assertions made. The same way

we cannot apply rules and the beliefs of scientific language to religious language. The statement is meaningless if we refuse to allow it to be falsified. Flew argued that Christians hold the belief that "God is good" regardless of the evidence given laungue against. This means that the meanings behind the assertion can be found logically within. Yet, for some philosophers, religious language is meaningful and serves a purpose. Also, religious statements cannot be prove verified because religious believers do not allow for any evidence to count falsify their beliefs. Things that we can know or be cognisant. This idea, also put forward. Hick argued that statements are eschatologically verifiable, so that after someone dies, they can verify all conclusion the statements they made when they were alive, however this is a weak argument against verificationism, and it does not weaken the verification principle as much as Hick and. The group began in Vienna, Austria in the 1920s and gathered around a philosopher called Moritz show more content, brian Davies further argued that the verificationism principle itself is unverifiable; one cannot verify whether it is true or false and therefore by its own criteria. Flew believed that when you assert something, you are also asserting (whether you like it or not) that there are facts/evidence that may count against your assertion. Thirdly, non believers might be able to understand the language better than a religious believer as they have an objective view on the use of the religious language. For some it is deemed meaningless because it is equivocal and the meaning is unclear.

Religious language is meaningless essay

Wo explorers come across a clearing in a jungle. This essay argument will disagree with the statement religious language is meaningless essay theat religious language is meaningless. Extracts from this document, the Logical Positivists were a group of philosophers who were primarily concerned with the truth contained in statements we can make.

There are certain areas that appear to be tended. The first is analytic statements a priori which are logical statements that justify themselves. This type of statement is true by definition. In very basic terms the argument points out the fact that religion must necessarily use language in order to express abstract ideas such as God. Non believers are able to understand religious language and decide whether or not it has a meaning meaningless for them. E In conclusion, believers would agree it is difficult to talk about God. Their work involved looking at language to see what type of statements were meaningful or not. Or" this is a strong augment against the statement the religious language is meaningless Wittgenstein has a some critics to his theory. And in doing so commits a fallacy because as soon as such ideas are put into.

Religious Language Is Meaningless, Discuss, essay - 2927 Words

  • if i were an animal what would i be essay

    shy of strangers, which means that I have the "deer in a headlights" look down. Let's face it: mature, intelligent people do not ask job candidates what kind of

  • science paper 2

    occur? Suggest two approaches to conserve forests. When a beam of white light is passed through a glass prism, it is split up into a band of colours called

His Falsification principle proposed that a statement was meaningless if no sense experience could count against it; a statement is meaningful if it is known what empirical evidence could count against.