Religious Language

What is cognitivism in relation to religious language? Tick all that apply.

• Religious statements are statements of belief about the way the world actually is, so they can be true or false.

• Religious statements have a world-to-mind fit.

• Religious statements are not expressions of beliefs but are expressions of a different mental state, so they can't be true or false.

• Religious statements have a mind-to-world fit.

What is non-cognitivism in relation to religious language? Tick all that apply.

• Religious statements are statements of belief about the way the world actually is, so they can be true or false.

• Religious statements have a world-to-mind fit.

• Religious statements are not expressions of beliefs but are expressions of a different mental state, so they can't be true or false.

• Religious statements have a mind-to-world fit.

What is the verification principle?

• A statement only has meaning if it is analytically verifiable.

• A statement only has meaning if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable.

• A statement only has meaning if it is synthetically verifiable.

• A statement only has meaning if it is empirically verifiable.

What is weak verification?

• To be able to prove a statement.

• When a statement only has meaning to the religious person saying it.

• When a statement cannot be proven to have meaning.

• To be able to verify a statement in principle.

Which other principle or theory does verification link to?

• Descartes' Trademark argument

• Hume's Fork

• Moore's "open question" argument

• Locke's tabula rasa

Who's idea is eschatological verification?

• Ayer

• Mitchell

• Hick

• Hare

What does Ayer say to defend verification against the objection that it's self-defeating?

• It's a definition, not a claim.

• All meaningful claims can be verified.

• The verification principle is analytic.

• It only relates to language.

What is Flew trying to say when he refers to John Wisdom's "Gardener" story?

• The verification principle is itself meaningless.

• Theists only accept verification of their "beliefs".

• Theists won't allow their "beliefs" to be falsified.

• The falsification principle is itself meaningless.

Why does Mitchell say the partisan isn't being irrational despite continuing to believe in the stranger?

• They consider evidence that contradicts their belief.

• They base their beliefs upon an omni-God.

• Their statements are meaningful- to them.

• The partisan's faith in the stranger isn't based on empirical beliefs.

What's a "blik"?

• A claim that the person won't allow to be falsified.

• A claim that is proven to be untrue.

• A claim that's factually significant; it can be true or false.

• A claim that reflects a person's worldview and so has meaning.