1277:
religious statements were indeed falsifiable; and since most recent scientific findings tended to indicate that they would not be falsfied, a consistent application of the falsfiabilty principle would accept them as meaningful (and hence possibly true). Flew therefore concluded that there can meaningfully be said to be a 'God' in the
Aristotolean sense of the creator and designer of the Universe. Flew's revised falsifiability proposals are essentially about time; he accepts the claims of physicists to be able to estimate the age of the universe (and also of our Earth), by extrapolating backwards from its current physical state, applying known physical processes and empirical findings as to their rates of change. Such age estimates have precise confidence intervals. By analogy, Flew argues, we ought to be able to extrapolate backwards from the current observed complexity of biological organisms, including ourselves, applying the known properties of the biological drivers of evolutionary change to estimate the biological age of life on Earth - again with confidence intervals. If the Earth's biological age is consistent its physical age, then biolgical theory is an adaquate explantory basis for observed rates of evolutionary change; and religious claims would be redundant. But if extrapolated biological age precedes physial age (and there is no overlap of confidence intervals) then some sort of 'intelligent design' may meaningfully be proposed. "the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done."
1372:, Flew attempted to demonstrate that religious language is unfalsifiable. The parable tells the story of two people who discover a garden on a deserted island; one believes it is tended to by a gardener, the other believes that it formed naturally, without the existence of a gardener. The two watch out for the gardener but never find him; the non-believer maintains that there is no gardener, whereas the believer suggests that the gardener is invisible and cannot be detected. Flew contended that if this interpretation is accepted, nothing is left of the original gardener proposed by the believer. He argued that in a similar fashion, religious beliefs suffer a "death by a thousand qualifications" because religious beliefs are qualified and modified so much that they end up asserting nothing meaningful. Flew applied his principles to religious claims such as God's love for humans, arguing that if they are meaningful assertions they would deny a certain state of affairs. He argued that when faced with evidence against the existence of God, such as the terminal illness of a child, theists will qualify their claims to allow for such evidence; for example they may suggest that God's love is different from human love. Such qualifications, Flew argued, make the original proposition meaningless; he questioned what God's love actually promises and what it guarantees against, and proposed that God's qualified love promises nothing and becomes worthless.
1249:
the fact that the article focuses on critiques of religion or on critiques of the descriptions of various deities. My concern is that the article seems to be pretty much entirely focused on
Christianity. I did not even see a single mention of the Talmud or Mishnah, I think there might have been one or two token references to the Quran, and I don't even think that the words "Rigveda" or "Bhagavad Gita" appear even once. According to Knowledge, Hinduism is the world's third-largest religion, and given that it has so many deities, one would think that there must be at least some discussion amongst Hindu philosophers over problems in their religious language used to describe at least one of their many deities.
1380:(which had not existed at the time of his original paper), Flew eventually became convinced that the complexity this revealed in the mechanisms of biological reproduction might not be consistent with the time known to have been available for evolution to happen; and that this potentially provided an empirical test by which the assertion "that there is no creator God" might be falsified; "the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done." Flew nevertheless continued to maintain the non-falsifiability of religious assertions purportedly derived from divine revelation; all of which he rejected as meaningless.
1253:", and simply begins to use the term "theists". I am not familiar with actual scholarly work that uses the term "theist", as I have only seen that term used in explicitly sociopolitical atheist writings. As the term itself is vague and (pardon the pun) meaningless, and as it is also demonstrably not a term that encompasses all religious beliefs (or even all beliefs of some individual religions), it strikes me as an odd term to use, unless it is one that the sources are explicitly using. I could be mistaken, but as I said, I am not familiar with this term being used in scholarly works.
1319:. At the core of Flew's argument - both in its original and reversed form - is the scholastic argument that 'God cannot be other than he is'; and consequently that the attributes of God cannot be contingent. Hence, to argue the meaninglessness of the proposition 'God', Flew sought to demonstrate the non-falsifiability of the proposition 'not-God'. When subsequently he came to believe (in my view correctly, though few theologians would agree) that the proposition 'not-God' is indeed falsifiable; he drew the revised conclusion that the proposition 'God' is meaningful.
190:
738:
722:
706:
411:
908:
887:
223:
787:
918:
797:
766:
479:
325:
244:
469:
442:
390:
608:
573:
545:
618:
1481:
science while deeply untrue under the header of
Religion and Theology. One should make a marker of this in the introduction so that people know that this article is arcane material, only the "academic" interest remaining. Still then, even more so, science remains the ways of God under Religion, this
1361:
argued in a paper first published in 1945 that a meaningful statement must simultaneously assert and deny a state of affairs; for example, the statement "God loves us" both asserts that God loves us and denies that God does not love us. Flew maintained that if a religious believer could not say what
1314:
As you say, better not to make any changes while the article is on show. Flew's revised position is discussed in that article; and I don't see much more need than a simple additional para to the effect that he subsequently reversed his previously published opinion - with a reference to his book and
1248:
2. Aside from
Maimonides and a token mention of one Sikh text and one Buddhist parable, the article is almost entirely focused on philosophers from a European-Christian background, and focuses virtually exclusively on critiques of Christian theology and beliefs. To be clear, I have no problem with
1016:
The article is entitled "Problem of religious language", and the following definition is given: "Religious language is a philosophical problem arising from the difficulties in accurately describing God." Is "religious language" the widely accepted notion for it in philosophy and religious studies?
1256:
But overall, this article reads (to me, and recall my disclosure at the beginning of this comment) as being almost exclusively focused on
European-Christian authors, European-Christian religious beliefs and practices, and almost exclusively focused on the writings of theologians and philosophers at
1244:
1. It seems as though virtually all of the individuals mentioned in the article are philosophers, with a few theologians. I did not see any mention of the views of experts on literature, especially religious literature or (even better, in my opinion) ancient literature or history (or archaeology,
1276:
May I suggest that the article - good as it is - really needs to make explicit reference to Flew's retraction of his wholly atheistic conclusions; although , as understand him, he continued to maintain the falsifiability criterion. Consequently, he came to the view that a (very restricted) set of
1094:
Quick scan indicates conflation of the dominant monotheism with religion in general and therefore with milling about "god". There certainly are problems with religious thought in general but the latter is a proper superset of this thing with many other variants on making scholarly do about made up
1153:
Actually, it might be more accurate to slim it down even further. At a quick glance the article seems entirely focused on a discussion occurring within the
Christian perspective. It either needs to be mentioned in the title or early on that this article is only related to the Christian religion,
1328:
Of course Flew's revised argument neatly turns the 'invisibile gardener' on his head. When Flew presented his view that biological complexity and evolutionary dynamics could not be reconciled with the physical age of the Earth, the response of many evolutionary biologists was to deny that the
1159:
I will however say that I do think the article is biased against non-Abrahamic religions. Not all religions even agree on the existence of a God figure, let alone if such things are "Incorporeal, infinite, or timeless." Such an assertion without at least nodding to the fact that the discussion
996:
What is with all the moving of this article? Is it two or three times now? Say listen, I've never heard of "philosophy of religious language" and I doubt we are going to find sources for that title. I propose that we move it back to "Problem of religious language" and hopefully that will be
1375:
Flew continued in many subsequent publications to maintain the falsifiability criterion for meaning; but in later life retracted the specfic assertion in his paper that all religious language is unfalsifiable, and so meaningless. Drawing specifically on the emerging science of
1054:
I'm not sure. The sources tend to refer to religious language, rather than theistic language - I think calling it theist language because we think it fits better would be original research. Also, parts of the article are more about religion than deities specifically - the
310:
204:
153:
1245:
as archaeological finds may uncover evidence of how individuals and societies thought/wrote about the issues discussed in the article). This somewhat dovetails with my second observation, which was similar to yours...
1543:
1533:
1528:
1025:
language. I feel that the title of the article should therefore be changed to better reflect this with more accurate terminology, perhaps to something like "Problem of theistic language".
1017:
It seems problematic to me because religion is much more than the deity and can even function without one, like
Buddhism. Judging from the article, this seems more about the problem with
1613:
1603:
1349:
The falsification principle has been developed as an alternative theory of meaning which attempts to establish the meaninglessness of religious language. It casts religious language as
147:
229:
1329:
implied precision could ever be achieved in biological description. So the arguments of the skeptic gardener are also exposed as subject to a death by a thousand qualifications.
44:
1252:
Oh, and I do have a third concern, but somewhat minor: at some point the article switches from using terms like "religious believers/adherents" or "members of <religion: -->
1608:
1563:
1160:
covered in this article is constrained to (an) Abrahamic religion is misleading. Pretty much what
Lycurgus said, though I don't know if everyone could get what was intended.
1154:
since similar discussions in
Judaism and Islam might diverge. As such, the article might not reflect the full range of the discussion, even within the Abrahamic religions.
1598:
1558:
291:
639:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1292:
It's unclear what change you are suggesting for the article Tom. Zounds like ur makin' a confused and fallacious semi-argument for intelligent design, and you know
1416:
1257:
the expense of experts on literature, archaeology, and history. I am very surprised that this was a featured article given such fairly obvious shortcomings.
1578:
1553:
666:
535:
525:
676:
1623:
974:
859:
79:
1638:
1568:
964:
869:
823:
745:
729:
591:
587:
554:
452:
1643:
1588:
1102:
Alternatively, redact with at least some mention of the set difference. These titles may be useful for such a generalization, in the direction of
1628:
1548:
501:
272:
1573:
1538:
641:
342:
85:
168:
1523:
1500:
1483:
1161:
940:
831:
135:
1633:
1618:
1593:
1241:(in disclosure, I am Jewish, although not overly observant. I do not know whether this informs or biases my response to the article)
1369:
1193:
1130:
1117:
492:
447:
1583:
827:
631:
578:
931:
892:
129:
99:
30:
1087:
835:
811:
771:
104:
20:
1056:
125:
74:
24:
422:
713:
583:
396:
199:
65:
175:
1213:
67.239.127.121, assume for 'accurate' you meant effective, appropriate, better, etc. 89.0.143.69, no, I don't.
410:
189:
1504:
1487:
1165:
109:
1362:
circumstances would have to exist for their statements about God to be false, then they are unfalsifiable.
1296:. If that's not the case my apologies and you may want to wait till it goes off front to add your changes.
1197:
141:
1079:
222:
428:
335:
209:
1387:
1334:
1282:
1262:
1189:
1354:
1103:
324:
243:
161:
55:
939:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
500:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1377:
1301:
1218:
1143:
1044:
1002:
484:
360:
352:
70:
389:
1127:
1114:
1075:
623:
213:
51:
1508:
1491:
1391:
1338:
1305:
1286:
1266:
1222:
1201:
1169:
1147:
1136:(as distinct from generalization to a wider context of historical cultures), respectively.
1063:
1048:
1033:
1006:
1383:
1330:
1293:
1278:
1258:
923:
802:
1235:
Even before reading this discussion, I had two main concerns after reading this article:
737:
721:
705:
1517:
1350:
1297:
1214:
1139:
1060:
1040:
1030:
998:
1366:
1358:
1316:
497:
917:
907:
886:
796:
478:
913:
792:
636:
613:
474:
355:
1499:
Hence Theism, that belief has been or is central to religious conviction...
786:
765:
329:
1186:
Monotheism ~ Fanaticism vs Discussion ~ Diplomacy , see the problem?
822:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
936:
818:
1460:
There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
635:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
468:
441:
1096:
607:
572:
1353:
because there is no way that it could be empirically proven false.
544:
404:
384:
15:
1113:. "A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility". James P Carse.
364:
was meaningless because it could not be verified empirically?
736:
720:
704:
543:
1544:
Knowledge Did you know articles that are featured articles
1534:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
1482:
posing no problem whatsoever to religious people. Cheers!
303:
284:
265:
160:
1529:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
1126:. "If they exist how would we know" Steven J Brams.
935:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
496:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
687:
228:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as
328:A fact from this article appeared on Knowledge's
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1614:High-importance philosophy of language articles
1604:High-importance philosophy of religion articles
1473:This is an article that gets it all upside-down
816:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on
1057:Alternative explanations of religious language
174:
8:
212:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
208:as one of the best articles produced by the
202:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
1609:Philosophy of religion task force articles
1564:Philosophy of language task force articles
881:
760:
684:
567:
436:
237:
184:
1599:FA-Class philosophy of religion articles
1559:FA-Class philosophy of language articles
408:
1415:was invoked but never defined (see the
1401:
1088:Problem of Abrahamic religious language
883:
762:
569:
438:
645:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
7:
929:This article is within the scope of
808:This article is within the scope of
629:This article is within the scope of
490:This article is within the scope of
1579:High-importance Philosophy articles
1554:Low-importance Linguistics articles
1407:
427:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1178:'Problem of Discussing Monotheism'
1106:and game theory directly applied:
14:
1624:High-importance Religion articles
1370:parable of the invisible gardener
555:Philosophy of language task force
510:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics
1639:Low-importance language articles
1569:WikiProject Linguistics articles
916:
906:
885:
795:
785:
764:
651:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
616:
606:
571:
513:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
477:
467:
440:
409:
388:
323:
242:
221:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1477:Why? Because this is only true
1082:) 7:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
1021:language than the problem with
969:This article has been rated as
949:Knowledge:WikiProject Languages
864:This article has been rated as
671:This article has been rated as
654:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
530:This article has been rated as
1644:WikiProject Languages articles
1589:High-importance logic articles
1509:18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1492:18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1462:, New York: Harper One, p. 124
1392:19:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1339:13:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1306:11:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1287:11:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1267:04:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
1223:08:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1202:05:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1170:01:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1148:00:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
952:Template:WikiProject Languages
844:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
1629:WikiProject Religion articles
1549:FA-Class Linguistics articles
943:and see a list of open tasks.
847:Template:WikiProject Religion
552:This article is supported by
504:and see a list of open tasks.
196:Problem of religious language
42:Put new text under old text.
25:Problem of religious language
1574:FA-Class Philosophy articles
1539:Old requests for peer review
1524:Knowledge featured articles
1272:Flew and religious language
349:The text of the entry was:
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1660:
1634:FA-Class language articles
1619:FA-Class Religion articles
975:project's importance scale
870:project's importance scale
677:project's importance scale
536:project's importance scale
311:Featured article candidate
1594:Logic task force articles
1111:Finite and Infinite Games
1064:10:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
1049:07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
1034:05:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
1007:19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
968:
901:
863:
780:
744:
728:
712:
683:
670:
601:
551:
529:
462:
435:
399:by an editor in the past.
371:
320:
240:
236:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
834:standards, or visit the
230:Today's featured article
1584:FA-Class logic articles
1448:Allen 1992, pp. 283–284
688:Associated task forces:
493:WikiProject Linguistics
1180:
1095:stuff (as fundamental
1059:section, for example.
746:Philosophy of language
741:
730:Philosophy of religion
725:
709:
632:WikiProject Philosophy
548:
453:Philosophy of language
417:This article is rated
351:Did you know ... that
232:on September 12, 2014.
75:avoid personal attacks
1458:Flew, Antony (2007),
1179:
932:WikiProject Languages
740:
724:
708:
547:
397:proposed for deletion
100:Neutral point of view
1411:The named reference
812:WikiProject Religion
516:Linguistics articles
273:Good article nominee
105:No original research
1430:Lumsden 2009, p. 44
1346:- suggested edit -
657:Philosophy articles
210:Knowledge community
1439:Jones 2006, p. 172
1378:Molecular genetics
824:assess and improve
742:
726:
710:
642:general discussion
549:
485:Linguistics portal
423:content assessment
361:religious language
353:logical positivist
248:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
1192:comment added by
989:
988:
985:
984:
981:
980:
955:language articles
880:
879:
876:
875:
850:Religion articles
838:for more details.
759:
758:
755:
754:
751:
750:
624:Philosophy portal
566:
565:
562:
561:
403:
402:
383:
382:
379:
378:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1651:
1465:
1463:
1455:
1449:
1446:
1440:
1437:
1431:
1428:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1414:
1406:
1204:
957:
956:
953:
950:
947:
926:
921:
920:
910:
903:
902:
897:
889:
882:
852:
851:
848:
845:
842:
836:wikiproject page
805:
800:
799:
789:
782:
781:
776:
768:
761:
695:
685:
659:
658:
655:
652:
649:
626:
621:
620:
619:
610:
603:
602:
597:
594:
575:
568:
518:
517:
514:
511:
508:
487:
482:
481:
471:
464:
463:
458:
455:
444:
437:
420:
414:
413:
405:
392:
385:
374:Featured article
372:Current status:
327:
306:
287:
268:
247:
246:
238:
225:
200:featured article
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1514:
1513:
1475:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1412:
1410:
1408:
1403:
1274:
1187:
1124:Superior Beings
1092:
1072:
1014:
994:
954:
951:
948:
945:
944:
924:Language portal
922:
915:
895:
866:High-importance
849:
846:
843:
840:
839:
803:Religion portal
801:
794:
775:High‑importance
774:
693:
673:High-importance
656:
653:
650:
647:
646:
622:
617:
615:
596:High‑importance
595:
581:
515:
512:
509:
506:
505:
483:
476:
456:
450:
421:on Knowledge's
418:
367:
366:
347:
302:
283:
264:
241:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1657:
1655:
1647:
1646:
1641:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1596:
1591:
1586:
1581:
1576:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1551:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1531:
1526:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1501:109.189.211.44
1497:
1484:109.189.211.44
1474:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1450:
1441:
1432:
1423:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1309:
1308:
1273:
1270:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1173:
1172:
1162:67.239.127.121
1156:
1155:
1134:
1133:
1121:
1120:
1091:
1086:Maybe move to
1084:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1039:Amen to that!
1037:
1036:
1013:
1012:Naming Problem
1010:
997:satisfactory.
993:
992:move Move MOVE
990:
987:
986:
983:
982:
979:
978:
971:Low-importance
967:
961:
960:
958:
941:the discussion
928:
927:
911:
899:
898:
896:Low‑importance
890:
878:
877:
874:
873:
862:
856:
855:
853:
807:
806:
790:
778:
777:
769:
757:
756:
753:
752:
749:
748:
743:
733:
732:
727:
717:
716:
711:
701:
700:
698:
696:
690:
689:
681:
680:
669:
663:
662:
660:
628:
627:
611:
599:
598:
576:
564:
563:
560:
559:
550:
540:
539:
532:Low-importance
528:
522:
521:
519:
502:the discussion
489:
488:
472:
460:
459:
457:Low‑importance
445:
433:
432:
426:
415:
401:
400:
395:This page was
393:
381:
380:
377:
376:
369:
368:
358:believed that
348:
322:
321:
318:
317:
314:
307:
304:August 8, 2012
299:
298:
295:
288:
280:
279:
276:
269:
266:March 12, 2012
261:
260:
257:
254:
250:
249:
234:
233:
226:
218:
217:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1656:
1645:
1642:
1640:
1637:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1522:
1521:
1519:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1480:
1472:
1461:
1454:
1451:
1445:
1442:
1436:
1433:
1427:
1424:
1418:
1405:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1379:
1373:
1371:
1368:
1367:John Wisdom's
1363:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:unfalsifiable
1347:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1318:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1271:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1131:0-387-90877-3
1129:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1118:0-345-34184-8
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1105:
1100:
1098:
1089:
1085:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1011:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
991:
976:
972:
966:
963:
962:
959:
942:
938:
934:
933:
925:
919:
914:
912:
909:
905:
904:
900:
894:
891:
888:
884:
871:
867:
861:
858:
857:
854:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
815:
814:
813:
804:
798:
793:
791:
788:
784:
783:
779:
773:
770:
767:
763:
747:
739:
735:
734:
731:
723:
719:
718:
715:
707:
703:
702:
699:
697:
692:
691:
686:
682:
678:
674:
668:
665:
664:
661:
644:
643:
638:
634:
633:
625:
614:
612:
609:
605:
604:
600:
593:
589:
585:
580:
577:
574:
570:
557:
556:
546:
542:
541:
537:
533:
527:
524:
523:
520:
503:
499:
495:
494:
486:
480:
475:
473:
470:
466:
465:
461:
454:
449:
446:
443:
439:
434:
430:
424:
416:
412:
407:
406:
398:
394:
391:
387:
386:
375:
370:
365:
363:
362:
357:
354:
345:
344:
343:March 6, 2012
339:
337:
336:Did you know?
331:
326:
319:
315:
313:
312:
308:
305:
301:
300:
296:
294:
293:
289:
286:
282:
281:
277:
275:
274:
270:
267:
263:
262:
258:
255:
252:
251:
245:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1478:
1476:
1459:
1453:
1444:
1435:
1426:
1409:Cite error:
1404:
1396:
1382:
1374:
1364:
1357:philosopher
1348:
1345:
1275:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1188:— Preceding
1185:
1138:
1135:
1123:
1110:
1101:
1093:
1076:Speling12345
1073:
1038:
1022:
1018:
1015:
995:
970:
930:
865:
826:articles to
817:
810:
809:
672:
640:
630:
553:
531:
491:
429:WikiProjects
373:
359:
350:
341:
333:
309:
290:
285:May 24, 2012
271:
214:please do so
203:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1359:Antony Flew
1317:Antony Flew
1194:89.0.143.69
507:Linguistics
498:linguistics
448:Linguistics
292:Peer review
148:free images
31:not a forum
1518:Categories
1397:References
1384:TomHennell
1331:TomHennell
1315:a link to
1279:TomHennell
1259:Hyperion35
648:Philosophy
637:philosophy
579:Philosophy
356:A. J. Ayer
340:column on
205:identified
1417:help page
1413:Tracy1996
1023:religious
999:Greg Bard
946:Languages
937:languages
893:Languages
330:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1355:Analytic
1298:Lycurgus
1294:WP:Forum
1215:Lycurgus
1190:unsigned
1140:Lycurgus
1061:ItsZippy
1041:Alandeus
1031:MaiyaH78
1019:theistic
841:Religion
819:Religion
772:Religion
592:Language
588:Religion
419:FA-class
316:Promoted
297:Reviewed
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1104:poetics
1097:beliefs
1074:Yea...
1070:Comment
973:on the
868:on the
675:on the
534:on the
332:in the
256:Process
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1479:inside
1365:Using
425:scale.
278:Listed
259:Result
126:Google
714:Logic
584:Logic
198:is a
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1505:talk
1488:talk
1388:talk
1335:talk
1302:talk
1283:talk
1263:talk
1219:talk
1198:talk
1166:talk
1144:talk
1128:ISBN
1115:ISBN
1080:talk
1045:talk
1003:talk
860:High
830:and
828:good
667:High
253:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1099:).
965:Low
832:1.0
526:Low
176:TWL
1520::
1507:)
1490:)
1419:).
1390:)
1337:)
1304:)
1285:)
1265:)
1221:)
1205::
1200:)
1168:)
1146:)
1047:)
1005:)
694:/
590:/
586:/
582::
451::
156:)
54:;
1503:(
1486:(
1464:.
1386:(
1333:(
1300:(
1281:(
1261:(
1217:(
1196:(
1164:(
1142:(
1090:?
1078:(
1043:(
1029:~
1001:(
977:.
872:.
679:.
558:.
538:.
431::
346:.
338:"
334:"
216:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
