Religious Language - incomplete

Cognitivism

Cognitivism

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.