1
May-22
4. Religious language
Verification principle:
Logical positivism: Vienna Circle – Schlick
Hume’s fork as a starting point. Synthetic propositions can be proven true with evidence
(sense/experience). Analytic propositions are true by definition/tautological.
Schlick: if something is not verifiable synthetically or analytically, it has no meaning.
Ayer: theism and atheism are equally meaningless, as neither are verifiable.
Ayer’s verification principle:
Based on logical positivism – verifiable = synthetically or analytically. If something is verifiable, it
is meaningful.
Can be verifiable in practice (there is sense/experience to directly support it) or in principle (it is
known what would be needed to test it empirically).
Meaningful = says something about the world. If it doesn’t, it is a pseudo-proposition.
Believed that religious assertions were cognitive (believers are claiming to convey fact).
o ‘God loves you’, ‘God exists’ = not verifiable in practice nor in principle, therefore
meaningless statements.
o Equally meaningless to say that ‘God does not exist’ – also unverifiable.
Strengths: Weaknesses:
+ Straightforward and objective criteria for - ‘God exists’ is verifiable eschatologically (Hick)
meaning. o Verifiable in principle (God’s existence
o Something is either tautological or can be can be verified in death).
tested empirically to be meaningful. o Celestial city parable.
o Ignores role of emotion and
commitment, focusing on fact.
+ Scientific. - Fails its own criteria.
o Depends on observation of the world o The principle itself is not verifiable – it is
empirically. a metaphysical assumption.
o Takes believers’ claims as fact, as they
intend them to be.
- Rules out anything with worldly significance as
having any meaning.
o E.g., art, music, history etc.
Falsification principle:
Based on Karl Popper’s view that something can only be scientific if it is falsifiable because scientists look
for things to prove their theory wrong in order to determine if it is the truth; “if it is not falsifiable, it does
not speak about reality”.
Flew’s falsification principle:
Believed that religious assertions were cognitive, therefore subject to falsification.
Religious assertions are only meaningful if they can be falsified with empirical evidence.
Used the parable of the gardener to illustrate his argument:
1. Two explorers found a clearing. One believed that there was a gardener who tended to the
plot, while the other didn’t.
2. No gardener is ever seen, but the former continues to believe, saying that he is invisible.
, 2
May-22
3. There is no smell of the gardener detected by bloodhounds and no movement of the fence.
The former argues that the gardener is invisible, intangible, and insensible.
Flew questions what is left of the original assertion, claiming that, like the explorer, religious
people will let nothing falsify their beliefs; they “die the death of a thousand qualifications”,
rendering them meaningless (“vacuous”).
Strengths: Weaknesses:
+ No inductive leap (like VP). - Religious assertions as a product of bliks (Hare).
o VP assumes that because most things are o RL = non-cognitive but not meaningless.
a certain way, everything must be. o Should not be treated as fact, as they are
o FP recognises that something can be an expression of a blik, therefore are not
falsified at any time – it does not assume subject to falsification.
that all things will remain a certain way.
- Religious assertions are cognitive but not
meaningless, due to faith (Mitchell).
o Believers do let things count against their
beliefs but choose to have faith anyway.
- Popper’s principle = scientific; not meant for RL.
Responses to verification/falsification:
Eschatological verification: Hick
God = verifiable in principle (eschatologically – in death).
Religious assertions as cognitive and therefore subject to eschatological verification.
Uses parable of the celestial city to illustrate his argument:
1. Two travellers on a road. One believes at the end there will be a celestial city, the other
doesn’t.
2. There are pleasures along the way (interpreted as encouragement by the former) and
hardships (character-building for the former; pointless but unavoidable for the latter).
3. Neither can know who is right until they reach the end.
Hick points out that though there is no evidence along the way, each traveller’s belief affects
their experience of the journey.
He compares this to religious belief, saying that although there is no evidence of God existing or
not existing, the belief one holds affects their whole life – they can only know the truth when
they die.
Therefore, each belief is meaningful due to its effect on a person’s life, regardless of its truth.
Strengths: Weaknesses:
+ Offers truth/falsity of other Christian claims if - Not a normal factual claim that RL is verifiable in
we can prove God’s existence. death
o Not falsifiable – believer will not wake up.
HOWEVER: - Hick’s argument is no stronger than the
+ There is more evidence for the existence of god atheist’s.
past eschatological verification. o Believer sees the celestial city/God as a
o E.g., near-death experiences/RE. definite, while the atheist does not.
o Therefore, are both equally meaningful?
Religious language as an expression of bliks:
May-22
4. Religious language
Verification principle:
Logical positivism: Vienna Circle – Schlick
Hume’s fork as a starting point. Synthetic propositions can be proven true with evidence
(sense/experience). Analytic propositions are true by definition/tautological.
Schlick: if something is not verifiable synthetically or analytically, it has no meaning.
Ayer: theism and atheism are equally meaningless, as neither are verifiable.
Ayer’s verification principle:
Based on logical positivism – verifiable = synthetically or analytically. If something is verifiable, it
is meaningful.
Can be verifiable in practice (there is sense/experience to directly support it) or in principle (it is
known what would be needed to test it empirically).
Meaningful = says something about the world. If it doesn’t, it is a pseudo-proposition.
Believed that religious assertions were cognitive (believers are claiming to convey fact).
o ‘God loves you’, ‘God exists’ = not verifiable in practice nor in principle, therefore
meaningless statements.
o Equally meaningless to say that ‘God does not exist’ – also unverifiable.
Strengths: Weaknesses:
+ Straightforward and objective criteria for - ‘God exists’ is verifiable eschatologically (Hick)
meaning. o Verifiable in principle (God’s existence
o Something is either tautological or can be can be verified in death).
tested empirically to be meaningful. o Celestial city parable.
o Ignores role of emotion and
commitment, focusing on fact.
+ Scientific. - Fails its own criteria.
o Depends on observation of the world o The principle itself is not verifiable – it is
empirically. a metaphysical assumption.
o Takes believers’ claims as fact, as they
intend them to be.
- Rules out anything with worldly significance as
having any meaning.
o E.g., art, music, history etc.
Falsification principle:
Based on Karl Popper’s view that something can only be scientific if it is falsifiable because scientists look
for things to prove their theory wrong in order to determine if it is the truth; “if it is not falsifiable, it does
not speak about reality”.
Flew’s falsification principle:
Believed that religious assertions were cognitive, therefore subject to falsification.
Religious assertions are only meaningful if they can be falsified with empirical evidence.
Used the parable of the gardener to illustrate his argument:
1. Two explorers found a clearing. One believed that there was a gardener who tended to the
plot, while the other didn’t.
2. No gardener is ever seen, but the former continues to believe, saying that he is invisible.
, 2
May-22
3. There is no smell of the gardener detected by bloodhounds and no movement of the fence.
The former argues that the gardener is invisible, intangible, and insensible.
Flew questions what is left of the original assertion, claiming that, like the explorer, religious
people will let nothing falsify their beliefs; they “die the death of a thousand qualifications”,
rendering them meaningless (“vacuous”).
Strengths: Weaknesses:
+ No inductive leap (like VP). - Religious assertions as a product of bliks (Hare).
o VP assumes that because most things are o RL = non-cognitive but not meaningless.
a certain way, everything must be. o Should not be treated as fact, as they are
o FP recognises that something can be an expression of a blik, therefore are not
falsified at any time – it does not assume subject to falsification.
that all things will remain a certain way.
- Religious assertions are cognitive but not
meaningless, due to faith (Mitchell).
o Believers do let things count against their
beliefs but choose to have faith anyway.
- Popper’s principle = scientific; not meant for RL.
Responses to verification/falsification:
Eschatological verification: Hick
God = verifiable in principle (eschatologically – in death).
Religious assertions as cognitive and therefore subject to eschatological verification.
Uses parable of the celestial city to illustrate his argument:
1. Two travellers on a road. One believes at the end there will be a celestial city, the other
doesn’t.
2. There are pleasures along the way (interpreted as encouragement by the former) and
hardships (character-building for the former; pointless but unavoidable for the latter).
3. Neither can know who is right until they reach the end.
Hick points out that though there is no evidence along the way, each traveller’s belief affects
their experience of the journey.
He compares this to religious belief, saying that although there is no evidence of God existing or
not existing, the belief one holds affects their whole life – they can only know the truth when
they die.
Therefore, each belief is meaningful due to its effect on a person’s life, regardless of its truth.
Strengths: Weaknesses:
+ Offers truth/falsity of other Christian claims if - Not a normal factual claim that RL is verifiable in
we can prove God’s existence. death
o Not falsifiable – believer will not wake up.
HOWEVER: - Hick’s argument is no stronger than the
+ There is more evidence for the existence of god atheist’s.
past eschatological verification. o Believer sees the celestial city/God as a
o E.g., near-death experiences/RE. definite, while the atheist does not.
o Therefore, are both equally meaningful?
Religious language as an expression of bliks:
