Dillon Precious Religious Language
Religious Language:
Is language meaningful or meaningless?
For something to be meaningful it must universally be applicable as such.
Vienna Circle:
o A group of English secular academics who sought to determine the difference between
meaningful and meaningless language.
o They were logical positivists, they sought to use logic to determine languages meaning.
o They developed the verification principle which meant that anything meaningful had to
be verified by experience, otherwise it was not meaningful. (Linked to Aristotle)
o Thus, they would conclude that religious language is meaningless.
It is impossible to verify God through experience, in which case it does not pass
the verification principle. Some would argue that religious language isn’t always
about God but God as a conceptual being is the foundation of religion, thus
religious language remains meaningless.
o Objections to the Vienna Circle:
Some religious people would argue that it is possible to experience God via
religious experience or natural ‘majesty.’
However, this experience is rarely repeatable and thus not verifiable.
Faith is by its very nature unverifiable.
Can you verify historical events since you were not there and thus cannot
experience it? Is history meaningless?
The circle accepted this criticism and developed the idea of hard
verification (verified yourself) and soft verification (verified by someone
else).
Objections from John Hick:
Hick says that this the circle contradicts themselves as soft verification
could be used to verify religious language, such as through the bible.
He brings up eschatological verification, the idea that when you die you
can verify God.
Falsification Principle:
Developed by Anthony Flew in the 1950s.
o He was influenced by Karl Popper and bases his work on one simple question to
religious believers – “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you
a disproof of the love of, or existence of, God”.
o He claimed that religious language is only meaningful in so far as it can be falsified.
o Simply, Flew argues that a scientist deliberately seeks out to prove a theory by
attempting to discredit it.
o For example, if a scientist concluded that “all metal bends when heated sufficiently”,
one can imagine that the scientists would be willing to alter their theory if they were
faced with evidence of a metal resistance to any amount of heat.
o In other words, she could accept that there could be circumstances where their theory
could be falsified.
, Dillon Precious Religious Language
o Could a religious person ever accept the falsification of a statement such as “God loves
me” in the face of all adversity?
Flew doesn’t think so.
He argues that religious believers merely alter terms or meanings to suit
themselves.
Religious statements are qualified to the point that the those their meanings –
“died to the death of a thousand qualifications” – Evans.
Flew argued that religious believers do not allow anybody to “falsify” their
assertions, instead they simply change their beliefs to suit the questioner.
Example:
“If there was a God, and he is all good, the Holocaust must never have
happened”.
“We cannot understand God, He works in mysterious ways, He must
have been testing us”.
It basically points out how any objection raised to a religious person will simply be instinctively
dismissed no matter what you say.
o It is thus meaningless.
Parable of the gardener.
o By constantly qualifying their statements, religious believers kill their claims – making
them meaningless.
o Via negativa – (working out what something is not) St John of the Cross.
o Process of elimination to work out what something is, by proving what it is not.
o Death by a thousand qualifications – the believer will never change their mind, as it is
based on faith.
o “It is easier to disprove something that it is to prove it”.
o Origins of the Falsification principle through Karl Popper - “…No matter how many
instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that
all swans are white”.
“Science is more concerned with the falsification of hypothesis than with
verification”.
Karl Popper believed that human knowledge progresses through falsification.
A theory or idea shouldn’t be described as scientific unless it could, in principle,
be proven false.
o “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything”. –
Friedrich Nietzsche.
Challenges to the Falsification Principle:
Cognitive vs non – cognitive:
o Cognitive – refers to propositions based on knowledge. Facts are known to be true or
false based on knowledge.
o Non – cognitive – refers to propositions that cannot be proved true or false through
knowledge. Non – cognitive propositions include ethical or moral propositions, or an
expression of emotion.
Religious statements are non – cognitive and meaningful.
Religious Language:
Is language meaningful or meaningless?
For something to be meaningful it must universally be applicable as such.
Vienna Circle:
o A group of English secular academics who sought to determine the difference between
meaningful and meaningless language.
o They were logical positivists, they sought to use logic to determine languages meaning.
o They developed the verification principle which meant that anything meaningful had to
be verified by experience, otherwise it was not meaningful. (Linked to Aristotle)
o Thus, they would conclude that religious language is meaningless.
It is impossible to verify God through experience, in which case it does not pass
the verification principle. Some would argue that religious language isn’t always
about God but God as a conceptual being is the foundation of religion, thus
religious language remains meaningless.
o Objections to the Vienna Circle:
Some religious people would argue that it is possible to experience God via
religious experience or natural ‘majesty.’
However, this experience is rarely repeatable and thus not verifiable.
Faith is by its very nature unverifiable.
Can you verify historical events since you were not there and thus cannot
experience it? Is history meaningless?
The circle accepted this criticism and developed the idea of hard
verification (verified yourself) and soft verification (verified by someone
else).
Objections from John Hick:
Hick says that this the circle contradicts themselves as soft verification
could be used to verify religious language, such as through the bible.
He brings up eschatological verification, the idea that when you die you
can verify God.
Falsification Principle:
Developed by Anthony Flew in the 1950s.
o He was influenced by Karl Popper and bases his work on one simple question to
religious believers – “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you
a disproof of the love of, or existence of, God”.
o He claimed that religious language is only meaningful in so far as it can be falsified.
o Simply, Flew argues that a scientist deliberately seeks out to prove a theory by
attempting to discredit it.
o For example, if a scientist concluded that “all metal bends when heated sufficiently”,
one can imagine that the scientists would be willing to alter their theory if they were
faced with evidence of a metal resistance to any amount of heat.
o In other words, she could accept that there could be circumstances where their theory
could be falsified.
, Dillon Precious Religious Language
o Could a religious person ever accept the falsification of a statement such as “God loves
me” in the face of all adversity?
Flew doesn’t think so.
He argues that religious believers merely alter terms or meanings to suit
themselves.
Religious statements are qualified to the point that the those their meanings –
“died to the death of a thousand qualifications” – Evans.
Flew argued that religious believers do not allow anybody to “falsify” their
assertions, instead they simply change their beliefs to suit the questioner.
Example:
“If there was a God, and he is all good, the Holocaust must never have
happened”.
“We cannot understand God, He works in mysterious ways, He must
have been testing us”.
It basically points out how any objection raised to a religious person will simply be instinctively
dismissed no matter what you say.
o It is thus meaningless.
Parable of the gardener.
o By constantly qualifying their statements, religious believers kill their claims – making
them meaningless.
o Via negativa – (working out what something is not) St John of the Cross.
o Process of elimination to work out what something is, by proving what it is not.
o Death by a thousand qualifications – the believer will never change their mind, as it is
based on faith.
o “It is easier to disprove something that it is to prove it”.
o Origins of the Falsification principle through Karl Popper - “…No matter how many
instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that
all swans are white”.
“Science is more concerned with the falsification of hypothesis than with
verification”.
Karl Popper believed that human knowledge progresses through falsification.
A theory or idea shouldn’t be described as scientific unless it could, in principle,
be proven false.
o “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything”. –
Friedrich Nietzsche.
Challenges to the Falsification Principle:
Cognitive vs non – cognitive:
o Cognitive – refers to propositions based on knowledge. Facts are known to be true or
false based on knowledge.
o Non – cognitive – refers to propositions that cannot be proved true or false through
knowledge. Non – cognitive propositions include ethical or moral propositions, or an
expression of emotion.
Religious statements are non – cognitive and meaningful.
