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

Is Religious Language Meaningful?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Is Religious Language Meaningful? Many philosophers past and present have tried to analyse language to determine whether or not language has meaning. The topic of religious language caught the interest of philosophers around the world. Early analysis of language came from the Vienna Circle, was a group of philosophers including Schlich and Neurath who gave rise to the logical positivist movement. Logical Positivism being the movement in philosophy that believed that the aim of philosophy should be analysis of language, especially the language of science. From the Vienna Circle came the theory which suggested that opposed religious language having any meaning, this was the Verification Principle. This stated that statements are only meaningful if they can be verified by the senses. They believed that statements only held meaning if they were empirically based, thus regarded mathematic statements as holding a lot of meaning, as all would agree 5 plus 5 equals 10 and this is empirically verifiable and true. The Verification Principle was developed and it was claimed that a statement could be meaningful if it was a tautology, something we know to be true by definition, for instance ?all squares have four sides. ...read more.


The falsification principle came about thereafter the Verification Principle. It looked at religious language from a new angle though. Karl Popper was prolific for his role in the Falsification Principle, he asserted that any theory that cannot be disproved is not valid. Therefore because we cannot disprove any of the statements used to talk about and describe God, it is meaningless. Anthony Flew although he did not openly say that religious language is meaningless, his work leads many to believe that he did regard it as meaningless. He argued that religious language could not be falsified and therefore isn?t a genuine statement. He asked what would have to happen to disprove the existence of God. He used an analogy of an invisible gardener who tends to a garden who is unseen and cannot be trapped. But there is no way of disproving it existence because the statements used to describe him don?t allow it. Flew argued this was the same for religious believers as they ?move the goalposts? in religious language by making great claims about God which allow flexibility to get around any problem that God faces but this doesn?t mean it is true. ...read more.


You could argue the same is true to different types of statements for instance mathematics or quantum physics, some people might not understand quantum physics or the reasoning behind it thus it holds no meaning for them. However, just because you don?t understand or use religious language doesn?t mean that it isn?t meaningful. Some philosophers argue that religious statements are analogical and so they cannot be proved or disproved. They are simply metaphors, because any attempt to use precise language would only be anthropomorphising God. Therefore the verification principle doesn?t render religious language meaningless. The Verification Principle is a challenge to religious language and its meaningfulness but not deadening as first thought. As it suggests that sense based verification is the oonly means of assessing meaningfulness, a reductionist viewpoint at best, but because there could be other ways of verifying religious language, such as Hick?s eschatological verification, religious language is not meaningless. Some may argue that religious language is meaningful dependent on the individual and their own beliefs. Due to its lack of empirical background it is a stretch to say it would have meaning for atheists, but it certainly has meaning for those who already have faith. ...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

    Aquinas disagreed. He argued there is a relationship between the world and God. God created the world and sustains it so there is a clear comparison. He went on to develop two forms of analogy to talk about God. Analogy of proportion and analogy of attribution.

  2. "All Religious Language is meaningless"

    to convey ideals and that which cannot be expressed using straight language. It is not the literal myth which is significant it is the message, or meaning behind it.Yet there is still a problem here, we still arrive at the same problem; symbol and myth mean different things to different people.

  1. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

    Wittgenstein begins by establishing that religious language is not meaningless but rather non-sensical by this he means that because it is difficult to define or picture it, it does not make sense to discuss it - remember 'Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent'.

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

    He gave the example, all humans beings are mortal in a strong sense without killing every human being , this is clearly impossible to do but a few people would doubt that all human beings are mortal, as all human observations to date suggest the truth of the statement human beings are mortal.

  1. "Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss.

    A statement such as "God is love", to Braithwaite, expresses the intention to live a loving way of life. Stories from the Gospels can be understood as providing an incentive to do this. Therefore, parables from the Bible such as Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead, is to show to us that we should not give up hope.

  2. A Critical Analysis of Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching - Chineses philosophy.

    A wise person lives in harmony by not aiming to achieve too much, stretching oneself beyond one's proper limits, but rather allowing oneself to play the role that comes naturally, almost passively. He should "know the masculine, keep to the feminine; know the white, keep to the black; know the

  1. Introduction to Philosophy.

    : Episteme Doksa > The true knowledge > Inferior Knowledge > Knowledge of arche (noesis) > Imagination (ekasia) mental fantasy and has no contact with reality > Based on concepts, theories and hypothesis > What we take for granted > Mathematical Knowledge (dianoia)

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

    He argued that if people speak equivocally about God, then it cannot profess to know anything about him as it is saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, doesn?t apply to God.

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