The Via Negativa uses equivocal language, negating all words in order to understand God. The negative references hold that God does not have the imperfections of this earth, however, His attributes to perfection are inconceivable. For instance, the reference to “God is good” would be asserting that “God is not bad.” It is the negative relation of the opposite. This theory was devised through platonic thought by Plotinus (3rd century) who held that ascent to the One lies in an apophatic type of meditation, as God is beyond description of ordinary language. He asserts that the more basic emotion is, the easier such things are to understand, that the absence of discourse was to empty the mind of experienced knowledge, as ascent is so high that it is beyond words to explain. However, the main flaw within Via Negativa, as despite its apparent avoidance of definition, it indeed proposes a way to talk about God and the metaphysical world.
Logical positivists examine how to use language as a way of conveying knowledge, and for any statement to have meaning it must be verifiable. Analytical propositions include the predicate within the subject, whilst some synthetic statements are taken if they can be verified. However, this effectively renders religious language to be meaningless, as it is not verifiable. A solution to this problem has been attempted through such things as strong and weak verification. A.J. Ayer first proposed strong verification, asserting things that were undoubtedly true. Weak verification allows experience to render it possible.
As soon as weak verification is accepted, religious language is probable. For instance, it is probable that Jesus rose from the dead through historical knowledge. Also, the consideration of the creator of the universe lying in a fork of either Brute matter or God. As the Teleological suggests, God is more probable through design of the cosmos.
However, the entire verification principle is often undermined, as a question often arises from within, enquiring exactly how one proposes to verify the verification principle. This was suggested by Kenny and Platinga, suggesting that it is highly contradictory.
The falsification principle implies that if believers cannot provide conditions in which they would not retain the faith in their religion, or a possibility of falsifying it, it is meaningless. The basis of the falsification principle is that the assertion of any given fact also asserts the negation of the opposing factors. Anthony Flew held this theory, taking an anti-realist point of view, suggesting that if one does not provide such conditions, it is blind faith. It is a non-cognitive use of language, and this interpretation can often be flawed by the believer through the “death by a thousand qualifications” which means the blind qualification of religion to be something it is not.
A response to this argument is that falsification is a meaningful principle, but religious language cannot be falsified. This was supported by R.M. Hare, who suggested that religious language is a “blik”; a personal interpretation of the language which is right or wrong. However, this has been criticised through the lacking explanation of why bliks are right or wrong. Bliks are also similar to Collingwood’s “ultimate presuppotion” which is the basis for interpreting one’s experiences. C.S. Evans supports these criticisms, noting the implication that they are cognitive, and these facts assert that everything cannot be verified or falsified.
There is another anti-realist approach, proposing references of God in fact make an assertion regarding the way in which one wants to live their life. It is this practical value which believes that religious language has meaning in a functional sense, and statements such as “God is love” is equivalent to “a person ought to regard love as the most important thing.” R.B. Braithwaite accepts Flew’s conclusion and supports this theory, also asserting that the use of religious parables, myths and symbols are to explain ethical values. This clearly highlights meaning in religious language, however, has been disputed by some, as through the abandonment of the traditional use of language, the distance from the original meaning is so great that there is not point to anti-realist religious statements. Even if Braithwaite’s theory suggests that a certain morality lies in religion, it fails to provide any grounding for these values and is effectively pointless.
Another theory regarding the value within religious language is that of the inability of humanity to ever prove any area of metaphysical existence. It is felt that one cannot prove either way in this lifetime, and that the truth will be proven after death. It is held that certain religious statements can be taken as true as they are probable. John Hick supported this theory, and it is more commonly known as ‘eschatological verification’. However, this almost seems to dispute the entire principle of the argument, and enquire exactly why one bothers to debate any of the subject.
This approach of meaning in the future holds meaning to an extent, but also is a weak argument , almost to afraid to assert either way. The meaning within the nature of religious language can never be universal. If one is to assert it from a religious, literal point of view it is meaningless to a non-believer. However, if one is to assert from an anti-realist point of view, it loses the cognitive nature, and original purpose. One may consider that perhaps it is not religious language that is meaningless, but our own expression of it which is.
