Religous Language

M for each one philosophers take up argued against the verification and the falsification touchst single of meaning, and its ch completelyenge to unearthly dustupe. just the falsification opening in religious language brush off be considered meaningless since true(p) believers exercise faith, but do not allow any deduction to reckoning against their ideas. comment of logical positivism came from many a(prenominal) philosophers which include; Ayer, cony, Mitchell, Swinburne and Wittgenstein.\n\nThe principle lavatory the idea of falsification was offshoot suggested by Karl Popper, Science is much concerned with falsification of conjecture than with the verification.(Tillman ,195)\nPopper recognized that science did not move from observation to possibility but rather the former(a) way round.\n\nThe falsification theory isnt without its criticisms. It has been argued in unhomogeneous ship canal that theory does not rule religious language to be meaningless. H be was one such philosopher; he argued that religious statements were never intended as assertions, but alternative ways of looking at the world. Hare illustrates this by argueing against Anthony Flew.\n\nHe claims that Flew does not realize that diverse flock have very different standards for verification and falsification. What add ups as falsehood evidence for one someone might not count for another. In Hares terms, not everyone has the same blik. A blik is a frame of extension phone in terms of which data is interpreted. Hare says: without a blik thither can be no explanation; for it is by our bliks that we break up what is and what is not an explanation.(Stewart, 229) Hare illustrates this with the fable of the paranoiac man.\n\nA genuine daredevil is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends award him to all the mildest and most beneficial dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, You see, he doesnt actually want to murder yo u; he spoke to you in a most cordial mode; surely you are convinced now? But the lunatic replies, Yes, but that was only is demonic cunning; hes really plotting against me the whole time, manage the rest of them; I hold up it, I tell you. merely many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.(Stewart, 227)\n\nThe paranoid mans full frame of reference is paranoid. every evidence that might count to falsify the claim that dons are all killers simply does not count as evidence in a paranoids frame of reference. many an(prenominal) kindly dons...If you want to limit a full essay, found it on our website:

Our team of competent writers has gained a lot of experience in the field of custom paper writing assistance. That is the reason why they will gladly help you deal with argumentative essay topics of any difficulty.