Religious Language 6

Vienna Circle

Movement in 1920s and 30s made up of philosophers and scientists

The logical positivist movement grew from Vienna circle, which sought to find the ultimate test for meaningful statements.

They felt that the accepted view that knowledge is based on experience can also be applied to language

Verification Principle

Logical positivists formulated verification principle to establish the meaningfulness of words.

This principle argues that for a statement to be meaningful it has to be verified by the senses.

This meant that metaphysical statements were without meaning; it was not concerned with them being true or false.

A.J. Ayer

Ayer is a British philosopher

He believed that empirical methods could be used to establish whether language is meaningful or not.

Ayer found that scientists’ claims were meaningful, because they were based on experiments

This means that scientific theories may not be verifiable ‘in practice’ but are ‘in principle’. So for Ayer a proposition was meaningful if it was known how to prove it true or false

Degrees of Verifiability

1. A priori - Pure logic e.g. maths

2. Tautology - analytic - logical statement that we can know to be true by definition e.g. Bachelors are male

3. Practical verifiability - statements which could be tested in reality, e.g. AFC wear red football shirts, this is verifiable in practice

4. Verifiability in principle - synthetic - statements which we cannot verify in practice, but we know what observations lead it to be true, this can be shown to be probable by observation and experience

Can false things be meaningful?

Yes, as they can be verified

Can religious propositions be analysed

According to logical positivists no, as religious positivists cannot be analysed using empirical methods, they are meaningless.

Strong and weak versions of the verification principle Ayer quote

“The criterion, which we use to test the genuineness of apparent propositions of fact, is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence if factually significant to any giver person, if, and only if, he known how to verify the proposition which it purports to express - that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject is as being false.”

Strong Verification vs Weak Verification

Strong:

• Anything that can be conclusively verified by observation

Weak:

• Statements that can be shown to be probable by observation and experience

Ayer strong verification principle

• Occurs when there is no doubt that a statement is true

• The truth must be conclusively established.

• One can verify it using sense experience

Ayer weak verification principle

• Occurs when there are some observations that are relevant to proving a proposition true or false

• OR if it is possible for experience to render probable.

Ayer’s Alteration

• Following heavy criticism of his book, ‘Language, Truth and Logic’, Ayer changed his definition of strong and weak as they were too exclusive and too liberal, respectively.

• Instead Ayer distinguished between direct and indirect verification:

  • Direct: Observational statement - things can be directly verified

  • Indirect: verified by other statements, which themselves can be directly verified.

Ayer on ‘knowledge of necessary truths’

• He accepted that analytical propositions because to reject such elements would be illogical

• Accepted an a priori truth in maths and linguistics because they ‘add nothing to our knowledge’

Swinburne on verifying God’s existence

If you combine the cosmo, teleo, onto, argument for God these demonstrate a cumulative probability of God’s existence

John Hick - Eschatological Verification

Believed statements about God can be factual and meaningful.

Uses Ayer’s weak verification principle to argue in favour of religious statements being meaningful.

Challenges Ayer that there are claims that can in principle be verified.

Hick’s, ‘The Parable of the Celestial City’

• Argues that the potential verifiability of religious statements makes them meaningful.

• Eschatological verification - we find out when we die

• Many religious statements rest on the claim that there is an afterlife and that means they can be verified in an afterlife.

• This would challenge the idea of reincarnation as it only works if we retain our consciousness and personal identity after death

Argument against Hick

Kind of like saying: if a box with something inside exists, then you can verify that something may exist in the box, so talking about this box is meaningful.

Kind of a silly thing to say

Keith Ward

Attacks the point that religious language is meaningless, saying that just because we can’t verify God, it doesn’t mean he isn’t verifiable:

“If I were God I could verify my own existence”

Strengths of verification principle

• Clear parameters to verify a statement; either it can be verified empirically via experience or it is a tautology

• Supported by the arguments of Locke and Hume (both empiricists); truth and knowledge were to be known via our senses.

• It is not just an argument against God and his existence; both the agnostic and atheist are making meaningless statements.

• Weak verification is Ayer’s contribution: it states that in order to be meaningful, a statement may not be verifiable but instead can be shown to be true within reasonable doubt

Weaknesses of verification principle

• Strong form is too rigid, to the point where we cannot make statements about anything without empirical observation

• Scientific laws become meaningless as we cannot verify them

• Swinburne argued universal statements cannot be verified so seem meaningless, yet we would all agree ‘all humans are mortal’

• Comparative statements/opinions are also meaningless because they are subjective

• Some religious statements may be verifiable in principle

• The verification principle itself is unverifiable: it isn’t a tautology nor can it be proved via experience

Who was Wittgenstein?

• Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was a 20th-century philosopher known for his influential work in the philosophy of language and mind.

• He studied under Bertrand Russell and shaped modern thought on meaning and communication.

• His ideas shifted radically over his career, from logical analysis to exploring language's social role.

• His main works are Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations.

Wittgenstein’s Early View: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

• In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein argued that language mirrors reality through the picture theory.

• Words and sentences represent facts, and meaning comes from this correspondence.

• He believed language’s role was limited to describing facts, while ethics and metaphysics were beyond its scope.

• Philosophy, he said, should clarify language’s structure to resolve confusion.

Later View: Language Games and Forms of Life

• In his later work, Wittgenstein rejected the Tractatus

• Wittgenstein argued that language does not get its meaning from being checked against objective reality, rather from how it is used inside particular ‘language games’

• A language game is a set of rules and practices where words have meaning only within that context:

  • For example, in chess, "king," "queen," and "castle" mean something specific — but those words mean different things outside of chess.

• A form of life is the shared background (culture, practices, way of living) that makes the language game possible.

• For religious language:

  • Religion is its own language game.

  • Words like "God," "sin," "grace" have meaning inside the religious community and their "form of life" - not because they are scientifically verifiable.

• Thus, religious language is meaningful, yet not cognitive, as no language really it, it all exists with these ‘language games’

Wittgenstein: A Game of Words

• For Wittgenstein, the use of language was like partaking in a game, to use a word, you first have to understand how it works.

• Wittgenstein’s example is the game of chess, where if you are told a piece is called the “king”, without understanding the game, you could never use the piece.

• He said that to argue that, how language is used, is meaningless, if you want to play the game, you must accept the rules, you cannot play chess while your opponent is playing chess.

• Religious belief has its own language, and so is meaningful to believers, but only in a non-cognitive sense.

• A non-believer will find religious language meaningless, but only because they do not understand the rules - DEPENDS ON CONTEXT

• Words mean different things in different contexts, and nothing is meaningless, you just do not know the rules.

Inside and outside the game

• Wittgenstein suggested that the rules of language can be seen from two sides, inside and outside the game, those who know the rules and those who don’t.

• He gives an example: Imagine one is standing in a steam train with all the controls, they have no understanding of it, but the driver would know it perfectly, the only way to engage is to learn through attempting to drive the train.

D.Z. Phillips and Religious Language Games

• Philosopher D.Z. Phillips, takes the language game theory and applies it to religious language.

• Statements like ‘God is love’ and discussions of religious experience are to be understood in their language games.

• So religious language is meaningful to those who genuinely use it.

Wittgenstein’s Anti-realism

• His approach to language is anti-realist

• What is meaningful is “true for me”

• Whether God does or does not have external reality does not matter

• Religious faith is an affirmative decision to “enter the game” and therefore find meaning in the language which is used accordingly.

• Truth is relative.

Arguments in favour of language games talking meaningfully about God

• Highlights non-cognitive nature of religious language

• Distinguishes it from other language forms

• Provides boundaries for the uses of language

• Statements are judged within their context - they are not inherently true/false

• Believers can be initialised into the rules of language

• Can develop, evolve, change and be disregarded

• Gives believers a way to express the meaningfulness of religion

• Explains why atheists/non-believers don’t understand the meaning

• Religious statements do aim to correspond w/ reality - God, Judgement and Afterlife are real to a believer, they are not simply ideas

• Makes sense to keep ‘different forms of life’ separate

Arguments against language games talking meaningfully about God

• Believers’ claims cannot be empirically tested. It allows any claim to be meaningful no matter how absurd it is. We can’t challenge the truth claims

• It alienates people not initiated into the games

• Some thinkers suggest that the theory resembles Fideism (knowledge depends on faith rather than revelation)

• Phillips - Wittgenstein’s argument supports his view of religion, but this leads to irrationalism and blind faith

• How can there be cross-religion conversation

• What about conversion

Strengths of Aquinas

• Aquinas grounds religious language in natural theology, making it accessible to rational thought.

• His use of analogy makes religious language meaningful and understandable.

• Aquinas' emphasis on proportion in language allows for a broad application of terms.

• He bridges the gap between the finite and infinite by offering a framework for understanding God.

• Aquinas avoids reducing God to human concepts, preserving divine transcendence.

• His approach respects both faith and reason, making it appealing to both believers and skeptics.

• The analogy of being highlights how human language can reflect God’s nature.

• It provides a logical system to explain complex religious concepts.

• Aquinas' approach is widely accepted within Christian theology, ensuring consistency.

• His method allows for meaningful discussion between different religious traditions.

Weaknesses of Aquinas

• Analogy may still fall short in adequately capturing the infinite nature of God.

• The reliance on natural theology can alienate non-believers who reject empirical proofs.

• It assumes the universe reflects God’s nature, which may not be universally accepted.

• Critics argue that Aquinas' approach over-intellectualizes religious experience.

• Aquinas’ method is often seen as too abstract, distancing believers from personal religious encounters.

• The use of analogies may inadvertently distort divine attributes.

• It is criticized for being overly reliant on human language to explain the divine.

• Aquinas’ work doesn't fully address the role of emotion in religious language.

• His framework doesn't leave room for alternative non-rational ways of experiencing religion.

• It can be criticized for attempting to make the divine comprehensible through limited human concepts.

Strengths of Wittgenstein

• Wittgenstein emphasizes the contextual use of language, acknowledging the diversity of religious expression.

• His theory of language games shows that religious language is meaningful within its specific context.

• He avoids reducing religion to empirical or logical analysis, respecting its complexity.

• Wittgenstein’s focus on everyday language avoids over-intellectualizing religious discourse.

• His emphasis on the pragmatic function of language highlights how language is used in practice.

• Wittgenstein allows for different forms of religious expression without requiring rational justification.

• His method highlights the importance of community in shaping religious language.

• Religious language, for Wittgenstein, is a part of life’s “forms of life,” connecting belief with experience.

• His approach allows for greater flexibility in how people speak about God.

• Wittgenstein's view respects religious diversity, acknowledging multiple valid ways of speaking about the divine.

Weaknesses of Wittgenstein

• Wittgenstein’s theory may lead to relativism, where all religious language becomes equally valid, regardless of truth.

• The idea of language games can obscure the need for a shared, objective understanding of religious concepts.

• His approach can be seen as dismissive of philosophical analysis of religious truth.

• Wittgenstein doesn’t provide a clear structure for resolving conflicting religious claims.

• His focus on practical usage can minimize the importance of theological depth.

• It is difficult to apply his language game theory to establish universal religious principles.

• Wittgenstein’s framework may not satisfy those seeking rational or logical explanations of religious concepts.

• His view implies that religious language is only valid within certain contexts, making interfaith dialogue harder.

• Wittgenstein's reluctance to discuss metaphysical truth in religious language can be frustrating for traditional theologians.

• Critics argue that his approach risks trivializing religious statements as mere social conventions.

3 methods of interpreting religious texts

• Traditional or conservative

• Liberal

• Fundamentalism or literalism

Traditional/conservative approach

• Accept central method of Bible as authentic and general message from God, accepting scholarship rather than literally accepting every word as factually true

• Similar to Aquinas’ view that Bible is cognitive and contains true and universal teachings

Liberal approach

• Understand Bible as human document, and needs to be interpreted for our own times

• Non-cognitivist approach

Fundementalist/literalist approach

• Bible is factual and logical, takes everything literally

Miracle Interpretation

• Non-cognitivism allows for different understanding of miracles in religious texts

• R. Bultmann claims miracles reflects a pre-scientific world, so the supernatural elements should be stripped and only the underlying moral values should be taught

• Some people argue myths are an original part of the tradition, not an added extra

• Interpretations change based on the culture and on the outlook of the interpreter

• Thus, the non-cognitive approach makes more sense

Summary of Falsification symposium

• Flew applied the falsification symposium to religious language in the symposium

• Philosophers wrote a series of essays discussing whether religious language can be classified like scientific statements, so we can identify what evidence could be used to falsify them

Hick quote

“In order to say something which may possibly be true, we must say something which may possibly be false”

What is falsification?

The philosophical theory that an assertion is meaningless if there is no way in which it oculd be falsified

Anthony Flew

• Flew said it often appears to the non-religious that no event or series would ever convince a ‘sophisticated religious person’ that ‘There wasn’t a God after all’

• He said that religious statements must be falsifiable if they are to be meaningful and factual

• He used the parable of the invisible gardener adapted from John Wisdom:

  • Two explorers find a clearing in a jungle.

  • One says a gardener must be tending it; the other disagrees.

  • They set up watch, electric fences, bloodhounds — but no gardener is ever detected.

  • The believer keeps modifying the gardener’s description ("maybe he's invisible, intangible...").

  • Eventually, the non-believer asks: "How is this gardener different from no gardener at all?"

• The conclusion here is that Religious language is not factual if believers refuse to accept anything that could falsify their claims.

R. M. Hare

• Started his section of the symposium by saying ‘I must begin by confessing that, on the ground marked out by Flew , he seems to me to be completely victorious’

• Hare’s parable:

  • A lunatic is convinced that all the dons want to murder him.

  • His friend shows him the most respectable don and shows how he does not want to murder him.

  • The lunatic says this don is diabolically conning and he does want to murder him.

  • No matter how many kind dons are produced he is not convinced.

• ‘blik’ is a basic unprovable assumption, that cannot be demonstrated false, that is used to justify a belief

• ‘bliks’ are ways of seeing the world and cannot be solved by observations of what the world is like

• He argues Flew makes a mistake by treating religious statement as though they are scientific explanations, but they aren’t even trying to be factual, just expressions of personal, emotional worldview

Basil Mitchell

• Partly agreed with both Flew and Hare

• He argues that religious statements are intended to be factual, but religious believers do not abandon their faith that easily as it is based on trust

• He gives the parable of the stranger and the partisan:

  • A partisan fighting in a resistance movement meets a stranger who claims to be their leader.

  • The partisan trusts him even when the stranger sometimes behaves suspiciously

• Religious belief is based on trust, not blind faith

• Challenges are recognized but do not immediately destroy faith

• Religious language is meaningful and factual, but operates with patience and loyalty

Falsification helps us understand religious language

• It allows us to see if something is objectively true, following Flew’s argument

• Surely God, the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, can withstand falsification, and if not should we doubt those properties, and doubt the use of religious language for a being who may not actually be how He is described

• It does not overvalue religious ideas, allowing them to be challenged like all other ideas, so no idea is not scrutinised - this even helps religious people who are able to scrutinise other religions in an argument in favour of their own, confirms their belief

Falsification does not help us understand religious language

• Hare’s argument: religious language is just emotion and preference, bliks, it falls to the smallest of criticisms so there’s no reason to treat it as something rational

• Reducing religious language to falsifiability ignores faith in God, and symbolic/metaphorical language, both of which are essential to religion

• If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then there is no need to falsify language describing Him, it’s divine, its beyond human rationality, what are you doing when you try to falsify God, are you better than He?

• Swinburne’s argument that meaningfulness is not from falsification

Swinburne Wider Reading

• He argues that some meaningful statements are not falsifiable, but still have meaning, and are understandable

• He gives the example of toys in a cupboard:

  • Imagine toys that come alive and move around when no one is watching.

  • Even though you can never prove or disprove that they move (because they freeze when observed), the claim still makes sense, it's understandable.

• Similarly, religious claims (like "God loves us") may not be falsifiable, but they still mean something.

• A statement can be meaningful even if it cannot be scientifically tested.

• Falsification is not necessary for religious language to be meaningful.

Pro-Cognitive Statements religious language

• It is how religious believers speak

• Supports the idea that religious statements can be debated using logic and evidence

• Aquinas and supporters of the verification principle argue that religious statements carry meaning as long as they can be empirically defended

Anti-Cognitive Statements religious language

• Statements like ‘God exists’ cannot easily be empirically tested

• Human language may be limited or inadequate to describe metaphysical reality

• Focusing on the facts may miss the whole point of the personal side of faith/religion

Pro-Non-Cognitive statements religious language

• Religious language often is used to unify communities and not describe objective facts

• Is flexible when it comes to the variety of uses of religious language

• Language games - it is meaningful within its context

Anti-Non-Cognitive statements religious language

• If only expressive, undermines the idea that religious beliefs have universal significance

• May reduce religious claims to simple questions

• May struggle to explain why religious claims often lead to strong truth claims and disagreements if they lack a factual basis