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

Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless.

Extracts from this document...


Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless. The verification principle is a key argument for whether religious language is meaningful or not. Verification means a sentence can only be meaningful if some sense experience e.g. see, touch, and hear can count in its favour. This principle aimed to distinguish between statements that were factually significant and those which were not factually significant. If a statement could be verified then it was significant, or meaningful, but if not it was meaningless. Since religious statements, such as, god loves you, could not meet this principle of verification, they could not, on this view, have a truth value and were therefore meaningless. The verification principle treats philosophy like a science and argues that a sentence can only be meaningful if some sense experience can count in its favour. On this basis most religious statements cannot be accepted because they refer to things beyond sense experience. Even if it was claimed that God is experienced by miracles that is not meaningful because it is the miracle that is experienced and not god. Ayer argues that the language we use in the material world is informative- it gives us information. ...read more.


Strong verification is when there is no doubt that a statement is meaningful, as it can be conclusively verified from our sense experience. Weak verification applies to those statements that could not be verified in practice, such as a scientific laws (for example, all metals expand when heated) or a general assumption (such as, all leopards have spots), such statements are still meaningful because we know what sense experience would count towards verifying them, experience renders them probable. Nevertheless, for logical positivists, to speak about anything over and above the physical world, is, they claim, ruled out by the verification principle. To talk about God existing may look on the face of it like a factual assertion but God cannot be seen, touched, or even smelt. When people talk about God doing this or that, what they in fact observe is not God it all, some physical occurrence or event involving human beings. A major strength of the verification principle is that we often use it in everyday life, if someone says its raining outside then we automatically use our senses to verify that statement. Also, on the face of it, logical positivism is right to point out that for many people talk about God can be puzzling. ...read more.


Similarly, you can argue that although statements such as ?there is life after death? and ?the bible is the word of God? cannot be verified they still have meaning for believers. They may not be able to prove them via the senses but the statements are still meaningful to them. Why should religious statements be treated like other statements? By their very nature religious statements are special because they refer to another sphere of existence, on this view the verification principle can only be meaningfully applied to material objects. John Hick has argued that religious statements can be verified eschatologically (at the end of time). God?s existence could be verified by each of us after we die and go to heaven. The verification principle argues that religious language is meaningless, however with all its weaknesses it is difficult to say that it can be applied to religious statements and suggests that religious language is in fact meaningful. But this is difficult to accept for non-believers as for them, a lot of religious statements cannot be verified and so are meaningless. Perhaps a better way to conclude whether religious language is meaningful or not is to approach it in the way that Wittgenstein does in that religious language is meaningful to believers but less so to non-believers. ...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

    The first man who believes there had been a gardener believes there is a God whereas the man who believed there had been no gardener doesn't believe in God. There are several critics of the falsification principle. Richard Swinburne says religious statements are non cognitive, and there are statements we

  2. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

    religious believers hold the view that it's meant for a personal understanding of God which has meaning to the individual. This is a very strong argument, which disagrees with the statement that religious language is meaningless, as it is subjective to individuals.

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

    Flew presented an analogy of the jungle. Two explorers in the jungle find a clearing in which weeds and flowers grow. One of them suggests that there is a gardener who looks after clearing; the other suggests that there is not.

  2. "All Religious Language is meaningless"

    The verification principle was concerned with the distinction between sense and non sense, and how this affected meaning. For verificationists it is irrelevant whether a statement is true, the important factor lies in whether the statement is meaningful. In short the Verification principle stipulates that only assertions which could be

  1. How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless?

    This theory gives no firm indication of what God actually is, as it only states what he is not, followers do not then get a clear picture of what God is, the Via Negativa only ever says what he is not.

  2. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    for people to have different opinions, so moving from a factual objective statement to an ethical statement does not work because it leaves an open question that cannot be answered. Therefore the ethical statements cannot be proved to be meaningful using ethical naturalism.

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

    Logical positivists argued that it was pointless to talk about God as such propositions couldn?t be verified using senses or a scientific experiment. It wasn?t possible to know the conditions under which such propositions could be proved true or false and therefore the talk of such things must be meaningless.

  2. Discuss the study of Religious Language

    We understand what good means in human terms and when we apply it god, it gives us a model to understand the goodness of God. We can qualify this model to improve our understanding of God?s attributes on a higher level.

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