Religious Language (part one) OCR Religious Studies Lockdown Special!

[@clara-wq1wm]

Hiya i’ve got my philosophy exam on the 12th and ur videos are SO AMAZING! You are so brilliant at thoroughly explaining these concepts and you make even the dullest topics fascinating! Thank u so much ❤

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You are very welcome ☺️ I hope exams go really well and I am pleased I could help.

[@caitrionadurack3274]

Depending on the essay question is it okay to talk about only two different approaches. For example, say there’s an essay question on the effectiveness of verificationism could I do the strengths and weaknesses of verificationism and then lastly offer falsification as a better approach and that be a good enough plan to get an A*. Or should I talk about more then 2 approaches if I’m aiming for those higher grades? Love your vids btw!!

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Great question. If it is specific to verification a good approach is to compare it to just one other in order to have the level of detail needed but make sure if you do compare you don't do a paragraph just on that topic and focus everything on the topic in the question. So for example verification paragraph then link to falsification within the same para not a different one (keeping the focus on the Q) hope that makes sense :)

[@caitrionadurack3274]

So helpful! Thank you so much

[@loishart9013]

Hi! Just wanted to ask about the chess example in Wittgenstein's section, as sometimes people use the metaphor of a game of chess, for example 'you were a pawn in his game of chess'. Obviously its not actually what happened but its not necessarily nonsense like Wittgenstein said? Is he saying that metaphors are also nonsense? Thanks love your videos they help soooo much with my revision!! :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

So pleased my videos are helping 🙂 when using the example of chess you just gave, the people in the conversation still need to understand the context of chess to understand what the metaphor means, so they are still part of a language game. If someone said that to for example children they would think it is nonsense, so you can use the words outside the language game and in another language game and it still makes sense, as long as the people playing the game understand it. Otherwise any words/metaphors in the wrong context will appear nonsense. I hope that makes sense and your revision continues to go well :)

[@loishart9013]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thankyou so much! That makes a lot more sense now :)

[@cheeks1]

if i had a question on Aj Ayer, do i only talk about this topic and leave out via positiva/via negativa etc

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

If the question is on Verification you could bring in another argument such as language games to develop your evaluation but it is not necessary. When a question is specific you can still get top marks if you just focus on what they are asking you. Hope your revision is going well :)

[@tobiadesina85]

If there is a 20th century religious language question can I write on paragraph on classic religious language

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You could but only if you directly use it in relation to the 20th century question asked, don't do a seperate paragraph on another area not asked in the question without making it clear why it is relevant to your line of argument and the specific question that has been asked :)

[@tobiadesina85]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach thank you

[@eviebeeswax1307]

What did the C grade girl end up getting?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

😂 a B

[@V.Vision821]

hi, what are the differences between flew and hare?

[@Sophiielonsdale]

As far as i understand, Flew argues nothing In religious language can be falsified as believers will always ‘qualify’ existence of God with excuses and reasons (death by 1000 qualifications). Hare argues that Flew does not understand how religious language works for believers, he agrees they cannot be falsified but adds on that despite this they are fundamental to a believers life and their effect shouldn’t be understated. Although they are both arguing that religious language should be considered false.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Very nice answer :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Adding to the other comment, Flew argues that if something cannot be falsified it can be argued to be meaningless whereas Hare argued it has meaning for the individual as a blik (the way they see the world) that whilst can't be falsified still has meaning for them :)

[@V.Vision821]

@@Sophiielonsdale thank you would it be accurate to say, Flew argues religious language is presented in a way that makes them immune to falsification so they lack cognitive content and therefore meaningless Hare agrees that they’re non-cognitive as they’re just ‘bliks’ or expressions based on emotions, however just as the bliks influence the lunatics behaviour religious language influences a believers behaviour, thus these expressions are meaningful to the person. In summary: Flew = non cognitive, meaningless Hare = non-cognitive, meaningful to an extent