We cannot speak meaningfully of God. Discuss.
We cannot speak meaningfully of God because God by nature is an ineffable being that
is separate from our physical world. God’s ineffability and transcendent nature means
it is difficult to make a meaningful statement about God without changing His
definition.
AJ Ayer came up with the Verification Principle which states that a statement which
cannot be conclusively verified, cannot be verified at all which makes them
meaningless. He believed that for a statement to exist they must be able to check it
against things that exist. According to verificationists, there were only two types of
statements that are meaningful: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions.
Analytic propositions are statements that contain all the information that we need to
verify it such as 1 + 1 = 2. Synthetic propositions are statements that can be confirmed
through the use of the sense, for example it’s hot outside. Ayer denies the possibility
of God’s existence because there is no way of empirically verifying his existence. AJ
Ayer also developed two forms of the verification. The first is strong verification which
is an assertion only has meaning if it can be verified through empirical knowledge. The
other form is weak verification states that for an assertion to be true, you have to state
what kind of evidence would confirm its contents.
However, John Hick questioned whether the verification principle makes religious
statements meaningless. Hick gave the example of the two travellers walking down a
road and they are arguing about whether that road leads to the celestial city. John Hick
believed that just like the travellers, statements that are made by religious believers
about God and heaven can be verified at the end of the journey. He called this the
eschatological verification.
Many people disagree with the verification principle because it is in itself unverifiable.
AJ Ayer argued that the verification principle only applies to statements or
propositions, not to complete theories.
Antony Flew developed the inverse of the verification principle which he called the
falsification principle. Flew claimed that any positive claim that we make also means
that we are denying its negation. For example, saying that a pen is black is also saying
that the pen is not, not black. Antony Flew argued that language is only meaningful if
we can conceive evidence that might count against it, for example it’s only meaningful
to say college is fun because students might be able to show contradictory evidence.
R. M Hare took the idea of the falsification principle and used it to describe certain
beliefs that he called ‘Bliks’. Bliks are non-rational beliefs which can never be falsified.
Bliks are not necessarily untrue, but they are groundless.
However, Basil Mitchell objects to this idea and argues that religious claims are
grounded in some facts and that religious believers allow that evidence may stand
against what they believe. For example, Mitchell uses the parable of a man who is the
leader of a resistance movement. It seems as though he supports the fight but
We cannot speak meaningfully of God because God by nature is an ineffable being that
is separate from our physical world. God’s ineffability and transcendent nature means
it is difficult to make a meaningful statement about God without changing His
definition.
AJ Ayer came up with the Verification Principle which states that a statement which
cannot be conclusively verified, cannot be verified at all which makes them
meaningless. He believed that for a statement to exist they must be able to check it
against things that exist. According to verificationists, there were only two types of
statements that are meaningful: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions.
Analytic propositions are statements that contain all the information that we need to
verify it such as 1 + 1 = 2. Synthetic propositions are statements that can be confirmed
through the use of the sense, for example it’s hot outside. Ayer denies the possibility
of God’s existence because there is no way of empirically verifying his existence. AJ
Ayer also developed two forms of the verification. The first is strong verification which
is an assertion only has meaning if it can be verified through empirical knowledge. The
other form is weak verification states that for an assertion to be true, you have to state
what kind of evidence would confirm its contents.
However, John Hick questioned whether the verification principle makes religious
statements meaningless. Hick gave the example of the two travellers walking down a
road and they are arguing about whether that road leads to the celestial city. John Hick
believed that just like the travellers, statements that are made by religious believers
about God and heaven can be verified at the end of the journey. He called this the
eschatological verification.
Many people disagree with the verification principle because it is in itself unverifiable.
AJ Ayer argued that the verification principle only applies to statements or
propositions, not to complete theories.
Antony Flew developed the inverse of the verification principle which he called the
falsification principle. Flew claimed that any positive claim that we make also means
that we are denying its negation. For example, saying that a pen is black is also saying
that the pen is not, not black. Antony Flew argued that language is only meaningful if
we can conceive evidence that might count against it, for example it’s only meaningful
to say college is fun because students might be able to show contradictory evidence.
R. M Hare took the idea of the falsification principle and used it to describe certain
beliefs that he called ‘Bliks’. Bliks are non-rational beliefs which can never be falsified.
Bliks are not necessarily untrue, but they are groundless.
However, Basil Mitchell objects to this idea and argues that religious claims are
grounded in some facts and that religious believers allow that evidence may stand
against what they believe. For example, Mitchell uses the parable of a man who is the
leader of a resistance movement. It seems as though he supports the fight but
