In this essay I am going to argue that religious language is meaningful. This is because not only
is it verifiable, but most crucially despite failing to be falsifiable it can be meaningful to an
individual regardless of if it’s true.
Firstly, the weaker argument against religious language being meaningful is from Ayer who
attempts to argue that it cannot be verified however is refuted by Hick. Ayer uses the
Verification Principle to claim that only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by
Empiricism are cognitively meaningful. Statements that are true analytically are true a priori by
definition, such as ‘a triangle has 3 sides’. Statements that are true empirically must be
verifiable via some test, with Ayer stating that ‘a proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong
sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience.’
Since all claims about existent entities can only be known a posteriori as such claims can only
be made after confirming the existence of such an entity, they can’t be true analytically. Also,
since Ayer claims that there is no empirical test which can be performed to prove God’s
existence, claims about God’s existence can’t be verified and known empirically. Therefore,
according to the verification principle, ‘God exists’ is meaningless as it does not meet the criteria
set out, and since most other religious language relies upon ‘God exists’ being true, such claims
are also non-verifiable and thus non-cognitive, having no meaning.
Hick however challenges Ayer by claiming that there are religious claims that can in principle be
verified. He gives the example of a parable called The Celestial City. Two men travel along a
road, one believing it will lead to the Celestial City and the other believing it will lead to nowhere,
neither of them know who is correct and only when they turn the last corner will they learn who
has been right the entire time. We can therefore accept that there is no way to prove God’s
existence in this life and still argue that it is verifiable eschatologically. For example, after a
person dies they can have an unambiguous experience of meeting with God which would verify
the statement ‘God exists’ and make it meaningful. In showing that religious claims can actually
be verified, Hick effectively counters Ayer as the Verification Principle thus shows that religious
language is meaningful, not the reverse.
Stronger is Flew’s argument against religious language as even if it can be eschatologically
verified, it cannot however be falsified and thus still isn’t meaningful. For a statement to be
falsifiable, there must be some possible observation that could prove it wrong. An unfalsifiable
statement therefore is one which could not be disproven and, according to Flew, becomes
meaningless. He illustrates that religious language is unfalsifiable via his Parable of the Invisible
Gardener. In this parable, two men come across a clearing in the jungle with flowers and weeds
and one man says to the other that a gardener must tend to them - he is a Believer whilst the
other man is spectacle. They keep watch for a gardener but none appears and the Believer
says that this is because the gardener is invisible. They then set up fences and bloodhounds to
detect the gardener and such methods also fail, yet the Believer is still not convinced. He claims
that there is a gardener, one that is invisible, intangible, with no scent and who makes no sound.
The Sceptic despairs - ‘what remains of your original assertion, how does an eternally elusive
gardener differ from an imaginary gardener?’ Flew argues that the Believer will not accept
anything as falsifying their utterance; rather they continually re-qualify their claim and the
statement becomes so eroded that it is no longer an assertion at all, suffering a ‘death by a
thousand qualifications’. Claims about God, represented by the gardener, therefore become
meaningless as religious believers won’t allow them to be falsified, for example they experience
suffering despite God being omnipotent and omnibenevolent and then claim that God has some
incomprehensible plan that justifies this, resulting in statements about God being non-cognitive/
meaningless. This response is stronger than Ayer’s Verification Principle as although Hick’s
response undermines it by showing that religious language can be verified eschatologically,
falsification cannot be achieved, even after death. If there is no afterlife, experiences which
is it verifiable, but most crucially despite failing to be falsifiable it can be meaningful to an
individual regardless of if it’s true.
Firstly, the weaker argument against religious language being meaningful is from Ayer who
attempts to argue that it cannot be verified however is refuted by Hick. Ayer uses the
Verification Principle to claim that only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by
Empiricism are cognitively meaningful. Statements that are true analytically are true a priori by
definition, such as ‘a triangle has 3 sides’. Statements that are true empirically must be
verifiable via some test, with Ayer stating that ‘a proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong
sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience.’
Since all claims about existent entities can only be known a posteriori as such claims can only
be made after confirming the existence of such an entity, they can’t be true analytically. Also,
since Ayer claims that there is no empirical test which can be performed to prove God’s
existence, claims about God’s existence can’t be verified and known empirically. Therefore,
according to the verification principle, ‘God exists’ is meaningless as it does not meet the criteria
set out, and since most other religious language relies upon ‘God exists’ being true, such claims
are also non-verifiable and thus non-cognitive, having no meaning.
Hick however challenges Ayer by claiming that there are religious claims that can in principle be
verified. He gives the example of a parable called The Celestial City. Two men travel along a
road, one believing it will lead to the Celestial City and the other believing it will lead to nowhere,
neither of them know who is correct and only when they turn the last corner will they learn who
has been right the entire time. We can therefore accept that there is no way to prove God’s
existence in this life and still argue that it is verifiable eschatologically. For example, after a
person dies they can have an unambiguous experience of meeting with God which would verify
the statement ‘God exists’ and make it meaningful. In showing that religious claims can actually
be verified, Hick effectively counters Ayer as the Verification Principle thus shows that religious
language is meaningful, not the reverse.
Stronger is Flew’s argument against religious language as even if it can be eschatologically
verified, it cannot however be falsified and thus still isn’t meaningful. For a statement to be
falsifiable, there must be some possible observation that could prove it wrong. An unfalsifiable
statement therefore is one which could not be disproven and, according to Flew, becomes
meaningless. He illustrates that religious language is unfalsifiable via his Parable of the Invisible
Gardener. In this parable, two men come across a clearing in the jungle with flowers and weeds
and one man says to the other that a gardener must tend to them - he is a Believer whilst the
other man is spectacle. They keep watch for a gardener but none appears and the Believer
says that this is because the gardener is invisible. They then set up fences and bloodhounds to
detect the gardener and such methods also fail, yet the Believer is still not convinced. He claims
that there is a gardener, one that is invisible, intangible, with no scent and who makes no sound.
The Sceptic despairs - ‘what remains of your original assertion, how does an eternally elusive
gardener differ from an imaginary gardener?’ Flew argues that the Believer will not accept
anything as falsifying their utterance; rather they continually re-qualify their claim and the
statement becomes so eroded that it is no longer an assertion at all, suffering a ‘death by a
thousand qualifications’. Claims about God, represented by the gardener, therefore become
meaningless as religious believers won’t allow them to be falsified, for example they experience
suffering despite God being omnipotent and omnibenevolent and then claim that God has some
incomprehensible plan that justifies this, resulting in statements about God being non-cognitive/
meaningless. This response is stronger than Ayer’s Verification Principle as although Hick’s
response undermines it by showing that religious language can be verified eschatologically,
falsification cannot be achieved, even after death. If there is no afterlife, experiences which
