Font size
WorksheetsReligious Language
Total questions: 10
Worksheet time: 6mins
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.
