Religious Language

Cognitivism

Religious claims express beliefs, are truth-apt and aim to describe the world. 

Non-cognitivism

Religious claims express non-cognitive attitudes. Religious language does not make claims about reality and is not truth-apt.

AJ Ayer’s Verification Principle

A statement is only meaningful if it is either: analytic (true by definition) or empirically verifiable (can be checked through sense experience). If it is neither, it is meaningless.

Strong verification

Anything that can be verified conclusively by observation and experience.

Weak verification

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

Practical verifiability

Statements which can be tested in reality.

Verifiable in principle

Statements which could be tested in theory, meaning you can say how you would verify it.

Logical Positivist response to religious language

Religious statements cannot be analytically true or empirically verified so they are meaningless.

Eschatological verification

The idea that some religious statements, such as claims about God or the afterlife, may be verified after death if an afterlife exists. They are verifiable in principle.

John Hick’s response to the verification principle

Hick argues that religious statements may still be meaningful because they could be verified in the future (afterlife), even if they cannot be verified now.

Issue with Eschatological verification

Relies on the existence of an afterlife, we can only know if an afterlife exists when we get there and if it doesn't exist then we are not conscious to verify that it doesn’t exist.

Flew on falsification

A statement is meaningful only if it is falsifiable, meaning there is some possible evidence that could show it to be false.

Flew on religious belief

Flew argues religious believers make factual claims but refuse to allow any evidence to count against them.

Flew’s conclusion

Religious language becomes unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless, as it makes no genuine claims about reality.

Mitchell’s response

Religious belief involves commitment and trust, rather than ignoring or avoiding counter-evidence.

Parable of the Partisan

A resistance fighter trusts a stranger despite mixed evidence, showing belief can persist alongside doubt.

Mitchell’s key claim

Believers recognise counter-evidence but continue to trust, so religious belief is not completely unfalsifiable.

Issue with Mitchell

Believers may always reinterpret counter-evidence, making belief effectively unfalsifiable in practice.

Hare’s response

Religious language is non-cognitive and should not be judged by falsification, as it does not aim to state facts.

Blik

An attitude to or view of the world that is not held or withdrawn on the basis of empirical experience.

Issue with Hare

If religious claims are not truth-apt, they cannot be true or false, which conflicts with religious belief.