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

"Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


"Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss. Logical positivism was a philosophical theory that was brought about in the 1920s by members of the Vienna Circle. It was developed on the basis of traditional empirical thought and the progress of modern logic. Logical positivism limited knowledge to two categories. The first being Analytic Statements, for example, "triangles have three sides" - statements that are trivial but true by definition and practice, and therefore meaningful. These statements are non cognitive. This means that they give us no new information about reality. The second being Synthetic Statements, for example, "all cows eat grass" - statements that bring together factual nouns and predicates. These statements are cognitive. This means that they are knowledge filled. They can be proven with observation and theory and are therefore also meaningful. Another way of describing this theory is through the Verification Principle. There are strong and weak statements. Strong statements, such as "Mary has red hair" - to prove it, all one would have to do is look at Mary. It is a straightforward verification. Weak statements are harder to verify: "Columbus discovered America". To verify this, one would have to look at historical documents and such like. However, according to logical positivists, because religious statements do not fit into either category (analytic or synthetic), they cannot be verified and are therefore meaningless. Anthony Flew developed this and brought about the Principle of Falsification. He was a leading atheist in the 20th century. However, he recently turned to religion. Flew associated falsification with the claim that religious statements cannot be proven by empirical evidence. To explain this theory, he came up with a parable. ...read more.


Although religious statements are impossible to verify, it is ridiculous to say that they are meaningless. For example, statements about love, one cannot verify the statement "I love you", but that does not mean that it is meaningless. In 1951, Ludwig Wittgenstein moved from seeing language as a mirror of the world to seeing it as an expression of life. He believed that language was about use. He said, "The meaning of any statement is given in the way in which it is used." People used language in different ways and for different purposes: commanding, philosophising, investigating, theorising and story telling. The idea of language games came to Wittgenstein whilst watching a football match. He realized that there were different language games just as there are different ball games (for example: football and rugby). A particular form of language reflected a form of life. We can apply this insight to the language game of life. Religious language could now claim to be meaningful within the religious form of life. He argued that language relates to a whole set of beliefs, practices and beliefs. Words can mean different things in different contexts. For example, it would be inappropriate for the statement "the Blood of Christ" to be seen from a scientific perspective. Religious statements can be true to the people who believe in it, despite scientific and historic evidence. In a religious game, statements can be meaningful as long as one does not use them outside the game. One must "follow the rules of the game". Wittgenstein makes a good point that a person would have to use or observe different games so to completely understand their languages. ...read more.


To a believer, the cross would signify salvation from sin, sacrifice, victory over death, God's love for the world, Christian hope of eternal life and the defeat of Satan. Paul Tillich 1886-1965 used the example of a national flag as a symbol, which expresses nationalism, patriotism and national identity. It is more than just a sign, such as a traffic light or a road sign, which merely provides useful information. Symbols express the believer's emotions about what that symbol suggests. Symbols simply transcend facts and therefore should not be interpreted literally. This would lead only to misunderstanding. Symbols are subtle modes of communication, which belong to high-level discourse. Although they do not belong to religious language, they are of much value to discourse that deals with issues that are beyond the factual. Symbols are a very useful way to communicate truths that go beyond the objective world. However, their interpretations can pose difficulties. For example, they can become the focus of worship and they can be so trivial that their original meanings can be lost. To conclude, believers would agree that it is difficult to talk about God. The meaning of the word "God" applies to a being beyond human understanding. Believers recognize that any discussion of God is limited, but they would argue that religious language does not have meaning or purpose. Although logical positivists and some other theologians have tried to argue that religious statements are meaningless, in my research for this essay, I have found that most of these arguments have more weaknesses than strengths. It is impossible to prove with empirical evidence that God exists, however, it is ridiculous to say that religious statements do not mean anything as they obviously mean so much to many people. It leaves us with more questions than answers. Caroline Field ...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. "All Religious Language is meaningless"

    as we can never know that what it refers to really truly exists. If we look at it from an anti-realist point of view, whether it refers to a true state of affairs is irrelevant and thus a statement is meaningful because it means something to that community and affects them accordingly.

  2. Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

    A main critic was John Hick. He said the principle itself is not meaningful because it cannot be verified using the verification principle. Hick argued when we die the truth of God's existence will be verified either true or false. This is known as the eschatological verification. It can only be verified the day we die.

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

    Statements are first divided up into two groups' analytical statements or synthetic statements. The first, analytical, states something is true by definition, it does not need to be proved every time as the statements will always be true through experience.

  2. Free essay

    Language game

    In same way, Wittgenstein argued, one could not apply the rules of one language game to another. Language can be correctly or incorrectly used within the rules of the game, but its primary purpose is not to make factual statements.

  1. In what ways may suffering create philosophical problems for religious believers? Outline two solutions ...

    In addition, instead of accepting that the world would go wrong - and that it would therefore require Hell as a place of punishment - why did not God create a better world, which would not have gone wrong? After all, God is supposed to be omnipotent.

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

    However, strong verification has been widely criticised for excluding many areas of knowledge. Eg- it is not possible to talk meaningfully about history using the strong verification principles as no sense observations can confirm historical events. Swinburne has argued that strong verification excludes universal statements of any sort.

  1. Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless.

    The same applies to historical statements. Accordingly Ayer distinguished between the weak verification principle and the strong verification principle.

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

    He said that signs do not participate in what they symbolise. Meaning that without knowing what the, for example the ?30? road sign meant, then it would make no sense. All these signs do is point to a statement e.g.

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