Religious language part 1
KEY PHILOSOPHERS:Hick and Ayer
-Communicating about religious matters can be tricky because it may not always be clear what
people mean by religious statements. E.g.:
◦ People disagree about what God’s attributes are
◦ People disagree about what particular attributes mean (does omnipotence mean the ability to do
the logically impossible?)
Cognitivism and non-cognitivism
-Cognitivism: Propositions must have a truth-value in order to be meaningful.
-Non-cognitivism: Statements can still be meaningful without having a truth-value.
-Cognitivists maintain that when people make religious statements such as “Jesus is risen” or “God
lives in all of us” they are simply articulating their beliefs; religious claims generally do not have
truth-value.
-A truth-value means that the statement is either true or false (it doesn’t matter which).
◦ Statements such as “a bike has two wheels” and “a bike has two thousand wheels” both have
truth-value (one is true; the other is false)
◦ On the other hand, “cheese is delicious” and “God walks beside me” are not the sorts of
statements that can be true or false.
Verification
-Verificationism is a COGNITIVIST approach to religious language.
-Verificationists suggest that religious statements are not meaningful because they are not
VERIFIABLE (they cannot be proven true).
-This is an EMPIRICIST approach because it relies on the possibility of physical proof.
, Logical positivism
-Logical positivism is a theory which maintains that if language is to be meaningful, it must stick to
discussing things which could (theoretically) be proven true.
-Once people start discussing metaphysical concepts which go beyond human experience (such as
souls, God, Heaven) it is problematic.
-Ayer is a logical positivist who proposes the VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE which states that: A
proposition is meaningful if and only if it is either (a) or (b):
(a) ANALYTIC
(b) VERIFIABLE IN PRINCIPLE
If it is neither (a) nor (b) then it is factually meaningless
-Saying that something is verifiable in principle means that we know what empirical evidence it
would take to prove the statement true.
-It doesn’t matter that this check couldn’t actually take place; all that matters is that the statement
could, in principle, be checked and proven true.
-Whenever logical positivists discuss verifiability, they are referring to verifiability in principle.
Religious languages is not verifiable
-Ayer and the Vienna Circle argue that religious statements are meaningless because they are not
analytic, and they are not verifiable even in principle.
-Statements such as ‘God exists’, ‘souls reside in Heaven’ or ‘God is the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost’ are not verifiable because they go beyond the sphere of human experience.
-we don’t know what evidence it would take to prove them, nor how (even in principle) they could
be verified. Therefore they are factually meaningless.
Eschatological verification
-Eschatological verification is a response to the COGNITIVISTS’ claim that religious statements are
not meaningful because they are not verifiable.
-Hick agrees with Ayer and other logical positivists that only verifiable (factually significant)
statements are meaningful.
-However, Hick argues that religious statements are meaningful because they are indeed verifiable.
KEY PHILOSOPHERS:Hick and Ayer
-Communicating about religious matters can be tricky because it may not always be clear what
people mean by religious statements. E.g.:
◦ People disagree about what God’s attributes are
◦ People disagree about what particular attributes mean (does omnipotence mean the ability to do
the logically impossible?)
Cognitivism and non-cognitivism
-Cognitivism: Propositions must have a truth-value in order to be meaningful.
-Non-cognitivism: Statements can still be meaningful without having a truth-value.
-Cognitivists maintain that when people make religious statements such as “Jesus is risen” or “God
lives in all of us” they are simply articulating their beliefs; religious claims generally do not have
truth-value.
-A truth-value means that the statement is either true or false (it doesn’t matter which).
◦ Statements such as “a bike has two wheels” and “a bike has two thousand wheels” both have
truth-value (one is true; the other is false)
◦ On the other hand, “cheese is delicious” and “God walks beside me” are not the sorts of
statements that can be true or false.
Verification
-Verificationism is a COGNITIVIST approach to religious language.
-Verificationists suggest that religious statements are not meaningful because they are not
VERIFIABLE (they cannot be proven true).
-This is an EMPIRICIST approach because it relies on the possibility of physical proof.
, Logical positivism
-Logical positivism is a theory which maintains that if language is to be meaningful, it must stick to
discussing things which could (theoretically) be proven true.
-Once people start discussing metaphysical concepts which go beyond human experience (such as
souls, God, Heaven) it is problematic.
-Ayer is a logical positivist who proposes the VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE which states that: A
proposition is meaningful if and only if it is either (a) or (b):
(a) ANALYTIC
(b) VERIFIABLE IN PRINCIPLE
If it is neither (a) nor (b) then it is factually meaningless
-Saying that something is verifiable in principle means that we know what empirical evidence it
would take to prove the statement true.
-It doesn’t matter that this check couldn’t actually take place; all that matters is that the statement
could, in principle, be checked and proven true.
-Whenever logical positivists discuss verifiability, they are referring to verifiability in principle.
Religious languages is not verifiable
-Ayer and the Vienna Circle argue that religious statements are meaningless because they are not
analytic, and they are not verifiable even in principle.
-Statements such as ‘God exists’, ‘souls reside in Heaven’ or ‘God is the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost’ are not verifiable because they go beyond the sphere of human experience.
-we don’t know what evidence it would take to prove them, nor how (even in principle) they could
be verified. Therefore they are factually meaningless.
Eschatological verification
-Eschatological verification is a response to the COGNITIVISTS’ claim that religious statements are
not meaningful because they are not verifiable.
-Hick agrees with Ayer and other logical positivists that only verifiable (factually significant)
statements are meaningful.
-However, Hick argues that religious statements are meaningful because they are indeed verifiable.
