Thursday, December 5, 2013

Are Religious Utterances Non-Cognitive? Do they mean anything at all?

Here's my lecture about Antony Flew's Parable of the Invisible Gardener and some speculations about understand religious utterances as non-cognitive.


4 comments:

Bob H said...

Hi Dr. Matt,

Thank you for making your lectures and ideas available online.

What an amazing coincidence. I just received in the mail, “reading philosophy of religion” (yes lowercase) by Graham Oppy and Michael Scott.(Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

Their first section is religious language. The readings and commentary are: Ayer, Berkeley, Putman on Wittgenstien, and Alston. Your video/lecture was a nice conformation (bias?) of what Oppy and Scott discuss in their book.

Good Job,

Bob

sam said...

Thank you so much for making these lectures available to those who can't fly to California to take your classes. Even if much of the content is familiar, it's always nice to hear a fresh presentation.

There are good philosophers and there are good philosophers who take their role as public educators seriously. This required not an insignificant commitment of your time and I greatly appreciate it, Prof.

51265126 said...

The reason I don't believe the term "God" is meaningless is because I can't imagine anything that I believe anybody would label "God", and there is no reason for me to believe that anybody can. "God" is just three alphabet letters in a row spoken as though it meant something, but it doesn't.

51265126 said...

I an unable to imagine anything that I am able to believe that any Christian or Jew would label with the term "God", thus I have no reason to even suspect in the least that ANYBODY can. Thus I can only conclude that the term "God" is merely an incoherent row of three alphabet letters. What else?