20th Century Religious Language

What is Verificationism?

Verificationism is the theory (from the logical positivists) that a statement is only factually meaningful if it can be verified by experience.

What is Positivism (Comte)?

Comte’s positivism claims only empirical knowledge (scientific/observable) is valid.

Why are they called “logical positivists”?

• Logical = influenced by Bertrand Russell, focusing philosophy on language and logical analysis

• Positivist = only empirical/scientific knowledge counts as meaningful

So: only scientific-type language is meaningful.

What does A.J. Ayer mean by “significance”?

Ayer says language can have different kinds of meaning, which he calls significance.

What are Ayer’s two tests for meaningful language?

A statement is meaningful if it is either:

1. Analytic (true by definition, e.g. maths/logic)

2. Synthetic (factually significant) and empirically verifiable

What does “factually significant” mean for Ayer?

A statement is factually significant if we know how to verify it true or false through experience.

What happens if a statement fails both tests (analytic + verifiable)?

It lacks literal/factual significance.
Ayer says it might still have emotional significance, but it is not cognitively meaningful.

Why does Ayer reject metaphysical language?

Metaphysical language talks about things beyond experience, so we don’t know how to verify it → it becomes meaningless.

Why does Ayer think religious language is meaningless?

Religious language tries to describe a metaphysical being (God), but since “God” is a metaphysical term, it is unverifiable, so it has no factual significance.

What does Ayer mean by “religious language does not express a genuinely cognitive state”?

It doesn’t communicate knowledge-claims that can be tested like real factual statements.

What is “hard verification”?

The original verificationists believed in hard verification: a statement is meaningful only if it can be verified with certainty.

Why did Ayer reject hard verification?

Because almost nothing can be verified with absolute certainty, so the principle would rule out too much.

What is “weak verification”?

Ayer’s weaker version: a statement is meaningful if it is probably verifiable through experience.

Why did Ayer later reject weak verification too?

It makes too many statements meaningful, even questionable ones — it could allow meaning to “almost anything,” including God claims.

What is Ayer’s final version: direct vs indirect verification?

• Direct verification = immediate observation (e.g. “I see a key”)

• Indirect verification = linked to observation, verifiable in principle (e.g. “this key is made of iron”)

What is the difference between “verifiable in practice” and “verifiable in principle”?

• In practice: we can verify it now (directly)

• In principle: we know a method exists even if we can’t do it yet (indirectly)

What example does Ayer use for “verifiable in principle”?

The dark side of the moon (unseen in his time).
Mountains there were verifiable in principle because we knew it existed and could, in principle, reach it and observe.

What is Hick’s response to Ayer?

Hick accepts verificationism but argues religious claims are eschatologically verifiable: after death we will discover whether God/afterlife exists.

Why does Hick think religious language is verifiable “in principle”?

We can’t verify it while alive, but after death we would (in principle) be able to.

What is the main criticism of Hick?

We don’t know an afterlife exists as a place with observation conditions. Unlike the moon, the afterlife isn’t confirmed as a real location we could access.

Why is Hick unconvincing if death = annihilation?

If death ends consciousness, there is no moment of realisation that “there is no afterlife” → so the claim remains unverifiable.

What is the key evaluation of Hick vs Ayer?

Hick relies on imagining observation conditions, but Ayer requires a genuine link to empirical access. Hick hasn’t shown religious statements are verifiable in principle.

What is the self-refutation problem for verificationism?

The verification principle says meaningful statements must be analytic or verifiable — but the principle itself is not analytic or empirically verifiable, so it seems meaningless by its own rule.

How did Carnap try to defend verificationism?

Carnap tried to argue the principle is analytic.

Why does Carnap’s analytic defence fail?

Because you can deny the principle without contradiction — so it doesn’t behave like an analytic truth.

Why is verificationism not a good empirical statement about meaning?

It seems false because people clearly do find non-verifiable metaphysical language meaningful.

How does Ayer respond to the self-refutation issue?

He says the verification principle isn’t a factual claim — it’s a tool or methodological stipulation used to test for empirical meaning.

Why does Ayer’s “tool” defence weaken his original project?

Because he wanted to dismiss religion/metaphysics as categorically meaningless.
But if it’s only a tool, then religious language is only meaningless relative to empiricism, not objectively meaningless.

What is the overall evaluation of Ayer’s “tool” defence?

It dilutes verificationism: Ayer can no longer prove empiricism superior, only assume it. Religious philosophers can reject his framework.

What is Popper’s falsification principle?

Science doesn’t prove theories true through verification — it advances by proposing theories that are falsifiable (testable in a way they could be proven wrong).

What example does Popper use involving Einstein?

Einstein predicted Mercury’s orbit pattern. If observation contradicted it, the theory would be falsified.

Why did Popper criticise Freud and Marx?

Their theories could “explain” everything and were never genuinely testable — they interpreted all evidence as confirming them.

How does Antony Flew apply falsificationism to religious language?

Religious language looks cognitive (it makes claims about reality), but it is unfalsifiable, so it fails to genuinely assert anything about the world.

Does Flew say religious language is meaningless like Ayer?

Not exactly. Flew’s point is it fails to say anything about reality because it cannot be falsified.

What is Flew’s key logical point about assertions?

To assert “X” is to deny “not X.”
So if nothing could count against it, it isn’t really an assertion.

Why does Flew think God-claims fail?

Believers often can’t imagine what would prove God false, so their statements aren’t genuine reality-claims.

What is Flew’s “death of a thousand qualifications”?

Believers keep modifying the claim (“God is invisible… intangible… undetectable…”) to avoid falsification, until the claim makes no difference to reality.

What parable does Flew use?

John Wisdom’s parable of the gardener: the believer keeps qualifying the gardener until there is no difference between “gardener exists” and “gardener doesn’t exist.”

What historical point does Flew make about religion and science?

Religious beliefs have been modified to fit scientific discoveries (e.g. evolution, Big Bang), making them harder to falsify.

What is Mitchell’s main argument against Flew?

Mitchell accepts falsificationism but argues Flew is wrong: religious belief is falsifiable because believers acknowledge counter-evidence (especially evil).

How does Mitchell describe typical religious belief?

Most believers base faith on personal experience and relationship with God, not blind faith. That evidence could be outweighed by evil → so belief is falsifiable.

What is Mitchell’s key point about falsification?

You don’t need to know in advance what would falsify your belief.
“Falsifiable” just means some possible evidence could overturn it.

How does Mitchell respond to Hare’s view?

Unlike Hare’s paranoid student, religious believers do not ignore all counter-evidence — they acknowledge it but think it isn’t decisive.

What is Mitchell’s parable of the partisan?

A soldier meets a stranger claiming to be the leader. He trusts him, even when he later sees him apparently helping the enemy. The soldier still believes, but recognises there must be a point where faith becomes ridiculous.

What does the partisan parable show about religious belief?

Faith is based on experience but tested by counter-evidence; believers may not know the breaking point in advance, but belief is still evidence-sensitive.

How does Flew attack Mitchell using the problem of evil?

Flew appeals to the logical problem of evil: any evil is inconsistent with an all-good, all-powerful God, so evil falsifies theism.

What is the counter-response to Flew here?

The logical problem of evil is disputed. Plantinga’s free will defence argues God can’t remove evil without removing free will.

Why does the evidential problem of evil weaken Flew’s claim?

The evidential problem doesn’t imply any evil disproves God — only that evil may make God less likely.

Why is Mitchell ultimately successful (evaluation)?

Religious belief is psychologically realistic: people do lose faith due to evil, even if they didn’t know beforehand what would break it. That shows belief can be falsifiable and cognitively meaningful.

What is Hare’s key criticism of Ayer and Flew?

They wrongly assume religious language is trying to describe reality. Hare argues it isn’t cognitive at all — it expresses a blik.

What is a “blik”?

A blik is a non-cognitive worldview/attitude that shapes behaviour and interpretation (e.g. emotions, perspectives, commitments).

Why are bliks meaningful for Hare?

They are meaningful because they affect how we live, even if they aren’t factual claims.

What is Hare’s paranoid student example?

A student believes professors want to kill him. Even when they act kindly, he interprets it as deception. This shows a worldview can persist despite counter-evidence.

How does Hare interpret religious statements like “God exists”?

They appear cognitive, but they are expressions of attitudes and emotions rather than factual claims.

What philosopher influences Hare’s psychology?

David Hume: reason is the “slave of the passions.” Religious “reasoning” may be rationalisation of emotional attitudes.

What is Flew’s criticism of Hare?

Theists intend to make cognitive truth claims. Religious arguments (e.g. Aquinas’ cosmological argument) show religion is not just emotion.

Why does Aquinas’ cosmological argument challenge Hare?

It uses observation-based premises to argue God exists. Even if wrong, it’s clearly cognitive reasoning, not just emotional expression.

What is the counter-defence of Hare?

Humean psychology is supported by later psychology: emotions and unconscious motives influence reasoning (Freud-style insights).

Final evaluation of Hare (balanced)?

Hare goes too far. Emotions influence belief, but reason can also shape emotions (Aristotle’s virtue theory; Haidt’s rider/elephant). Religious language ranges from cognitive argument to blind faith — Hare overgeneralises.

What is Wittgenstein’s main idea about meaning?

Meaning comes from use in social context, not from scientific reference to reality.

What is a language game?

A language game is a rule-governed form of social interaction where words gain meaning through their role in that practice.

How does Wittgenstein criticise Ayer and Flew?

They treat religious language as a failed scientific description. Wittgenstein says it’s meaningful within its own social practice.

Why does Wittgenstein say context matters?

We speak differently with friends vs family vs at an interview — because each context has rules, often learned unconsciously.

How does Wittgenstein view religion and science?

They are different language games. Religious language may be meaningless in science, but meaningful within religious life.

What is the key claim about religious meaning?

Religious language is meaningful to those socialised into the religious “form of life” because they understand the rules.

What analogy links language games to Plato’s cave?

Different language games are like different caves — different frameworks shaping meaning and understanding.

What is a strength of Wittgenstein’s approach?

It explains why religion and science seem independent and why religious meaning doesn’t depend on scientific verification.

What is Wittgensteinian fideism?

The idea that religion is purely faith-based, separate from science and reason — like Tertullian’s “Athens vs Jerusalem.”

What is the main objection to Wittgensteinian fideism?

Most believers treat religious language as cognitive. Natural theology shows faith and reason combine.

How does Aquinas challenge fideism?

Aquinas offers five a posteriori proofs from observation, showing religious belief makes truth claims about the same reality as science.

What modern argument supports Aquinas-style natural theology?

The anthropic fine-tuning argument: God explains why the laws of nature support life.

Evaluation: why does fideism go too far?

Even if arguments fail, they clearly mix scientific and religious meaning. It’s not credible to say religious language is sealed off from truth-claims about reality.

Why is Wittgenstein more convincing than Hare in one way?

His view is sociological, not individualistic: religion is communal practice (prayer, scripture, worship, confession) shaped by shared rules.

How does Braithwaite develop this?

Religious stories and doctrines function to express and motivate moral intentions in believers.

What is the main criticism of language games theory?

It risks reductionism and theological anti-realism: religion becomes just human behaviour, losing its “vertical dimension” (response to transcendence).

What does “vertical dimension” mean?

Religion presents itself as engagement with a real transcendent reality (God), not merely social construction.

What is a key argument against reducing religion to a form of life?

The universal features of religion cross-culturally suggest religion is linked to something objective beyond local social rules.

What universal features are used as evidence?

• mystical experience

• conscience (to some degree)

• similar ethical insights and religious stories across traditions

How does Hick’s pluralism interpret universality?

Religions are culturally-shaped phenomenal responses to a transcendent noumenal reality.

What is a naturalist alternative explanation of universality?

Sociology or evolutionary psychology: religion emerges due to human nature and social patterns.

What is the final evaluation of Wittgenstein?

Even if we disagree about whether the objective “something” is God, pluralist reality, or natural forces, religion cannot be reduced purely to a constructed language game — it is linked to something beyond itself.

What is Ayer’s overall conclusion about religious language?

It is a cognitive attempt to describe metaphysical reality, but it is unverifiable, so it lacks factual significance.

What is Flew’s overall conclusion about religious language?

It appears cognitive but becomes unfalsifiable through qualifications, so it fails to assert anything about reality.

What is Mitchell’s overall conclusion?

Theism is cognitively meaningful because it is evidence-sensitive and can be overturned by counter-evidence (e.g. evil).

What is Hare’s overall conclusion?

Religious language is meaningful as a non-cognitive expression of a worldview/attitude (blik), not as factual description.

What is Wittgenstein’s overall conclusion?

Religious language is meaningful within the religious form of life as a rule-governed language game, even if it isn’t scientific.