• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Comment on the claim religious language can never be meaningful Answer this question with reference to the Verification principle and the Falsification principle, you may wish to include A.J.Ayer or Ludwig Wittgenstein, also consider the

Extracts from this document...


Comment on the claim 'religious language can never be meaningful' Answer this question with reference to the 'Verification principle' and the 'Falsification principle', you may wish to include A.J.Ayer or Ludwig Wittgenstein, also consider the relevance of Antony Flew and R.M.Hare whilst addressing some of the criticisms aimed towards the theories. Religious language is arguably non-cognitive; this means it cannot be checked true or false. According to the verifications principle the only language which is verifiable (checkable) is meaningful. Verifiable language includes analytical statements (things which are always true for example mathematics) and synthetic statements (statements which you can prove true or false). The logical positivists (Vienna circle) believe that any statements which cannot be proved within this world are completely meaningless. A.J Ayer who was part of this group said that the statement 'God exists' is meaningless because God is a transient being, who is supposedly infinite whilst we are finite. ...read more.


John Hick responds to the verification principle saying that perhaps in the after-life God can be verified - this is known as eschatological verification. It seems that this is a weak argument though, as it is not itself verifiable. In regards to the falsification principle, religious language again fails. The falsification principle says that a statement is only meaningful if we accept that evidence may count against it. Antony Flew says that religious language can never be meaningful as believers will never let any evidence count against their belief. He uses John Wisdom's parable of the gardener as follows: "Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. ...read more.


This belief affects his whole life, much like, Hare claims, religion affects the believers' life. Basil Mitchell is one of the main critics against the falsification principle; he believes that the believer should have faith even when evidence points against their belief -this will appeal to Christians who find that they don't want to have to justify their belief and will say that faith is enough - perhaps intuitive faith. Overall the verification principle and the falsification principle do not actively agree that religious language can ever be meaningful, they provide strong arguments for this and despite criticisms appear to be sound arguments. The verification principle asks statements to be ones that can be proven true or false whilst the falsification wants the statement to be able to have evidence against it. I would probably say that the verification principle provided the stronger case as the criticisms are not very strong and it makes sense to say that we should not talk about anything un-provable because this will likely be meaningless. 1 SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

    Paul Tillich and J. R. Randall had similar ideas concerning religious language. Tillich used ordinary language to point to God but spoke of the words used as symbols. He distinguished between a sign and a symbol. A sign is a conventional way of pointing to something, e.g. a road sign.

  2. The verification principle offers no real challenge to religious belief. Discuss

    He would argue that the verification offers a large challenge to religious belief. Ayer suggested a procedure for deciding whether a statement is verifiable. Ayer called the statement being tested a 'putative proposition'. Ayer distinguished 'practical verifiability' from 'verifiability in principle'.

  1. falsification principle

    or 'good' even though there are things like natural disasters in the world. The challenge to religious beliefs by the Falsification Principle is now starting to look less like a real challenge. It looks even less so when you consider there are people such as Paul Tillich who argued that religious language/statements are symbolic shows that religious statements have meaning.

  2. "All Religious Language is meaningless"

    Aquinas himself admitted that 'we know that God is, but not what God is'. So to the atheist or agnostic there is still difficulty in talking meaningfully about God, or reaching common ground when discussing religious beliefs. If then straight language fails, perhaps we can use symbol.

  1. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    Therefore given that reincarnation argues not for life after death, just for life per se, it seems irrelevant to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of its arguments. Another argument for life after death arises through 'spiritualism' and communications between the spirit world and the living is regarded as evidence of life after death.

  2. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    Non-cognitivists make a distinction between facts and values. This approach is often followed by anti-realists. One non-cognitive theory of ethics is emotivism. A.J Ayer starts with the premise that there is no ethical knowledge because ethical judgements are not the kinds of statements that can be true or false.

  1. Is Religious Language Meaningful?

    ?Language, Truth and Logic? he rejects metaphysics as meaningless; this could explain the enthusiasm to provide a less rigid theory which could possibly imply that religious language is meaningful. His form of the Verification Principle stated that for a statement to be meaningful it must either be a tautology or verifiable in principle.

  2. Philosophers have proved conclusively that religious language is meaningful. Discuss

    Aquinas believed that there was a ?middle way?, to talk meaningfully about God, this was analogy, he described 3 types of analogy; the analogy of attribution, analogy of proper proportion and analogy of improper proportion. The analogy of attribution is applied when a term, originally used concerning one thing, is

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work