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

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

Extracts from this document...


'The verification principle offers no real challenge to religious belief.' Discuss I would like to start this essay by explaining the background to Verification Principle. Verification is a philosophical movement which claims that language is only meaningful if it can be verified by a sense- observation or it is a tautology. The verification movement was influenced by science, which emphasized the importance of confirming any statement by observation eg through experiment. Moritz, Schlick and other supporters of the verification pointed out that the meaningfulness of statements is shown by the method by which you verify the statement. If you cannot demonstrate with sense-observations how a statement is true, then the statement is factually meaningless. Personally, I agree with the verification principle in some aspects, for example things can be verified by using sense observations and that its challenges the religious belief of God. There are also some stronger and weaker challenges which I will explain later on. Verificationists argue that any statement that cannot be proved true or false is meaningless. Language that talks about God is meaningless for a verificationist as there is no way to demonstrate the truth or falsity of God. However one problem with early verificationism's strict scientific approach is that it would mean that many statements people make are meaningless, even when most people think they make perfect sense. ...read more.


Swinburne refers to debates about the end of the world, the devil or Poseidon However if Ayer is correct, religious statements are nonsense if they are referring to God defined in a traditional sense as infinite, impersonal and transcendent because statements about God do not tell people anything about the world that is verifiable Ayer also rejected any argument from religious experience. He accepted that people might claim to have experiences of God, but he argues that a person, such as Paul who claim they have seen God is recounting a set of experiences raised interesting psychological questions, but because religious experiences are not verifiable Ayer rejected them as meaningful statements. However it is possible for something to be meaningful but unverifiable. It is quite possible for a statement to be meaningful without being verifiable. Swinburne gives the example of toys in a cupboard. The toys only come out at night when no one observes them. The situation is meaningful even though it is fictitious and unverifiable. Schrodinger suggested that you can imagine a cat in a box with a radioactive particle that would kill the cat. Is the cat dead or alive- you cannot know. If you open the box to find out, you may trigger the release of the radioactive particle, thus killing the cat. ...read more.


Anthony Flew's example of the explorer in the garden was inspired by a similar story by John Wisdom. However Wisdom uses his story to make a different point to Flew. Wisdom's story about a garden suggested that 2 people were looking at an overgrown garden. One of the observers how uncared it is, but there are signs of order like flowers and suggests a gardener. However no test can show whether there was a gardener. It suggests that religious language makes statements that are reasonable. Just as they cannot verify whether a gardener has been at work, the existence or nature of God might be beyond our normal methods of verification. Therefore the nature of God is a matter that is outside the scope of traditional methods of scientific enquiry. In conclusion the principles of verification and falsification both present strong challenges to religious belief. However, they are not the only ways in which to assess religious language, and for many believers the language they use to talk about God is symbolic, mythological or just different from other language. Therefore, believers might claim that the principles of falsification and verification are not relevant challenges to religious language as the nature of religious language is different from that supposed in the verification and falsification debates. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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 nice flowers in the garden symbolised aspects of the world and it is this that supports the belief in a gardener, and therefore a God. Wisdom believed that religion is not an outlook, which has no regard for the facts.

  2. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

    He used the example of the student. The student was convinced dons were going to kill him and he wouldn't accept any evidence against them not wanting to kill him. Even though he wouldn't accept any evidence against his belief, it is meaningful to him because of what he thought.

  1. Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

    Even though we cannot falsify the fact as to whether to toys move or not, we can still understand the ideas of the toys moving. Even though we haven't seen God we have the knowledge to believe God does exist.

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

    To what extent are these solutions successful? (9) Just by looking at the general overview of these 2 completely different arguments, it is hard to tell with one out of the two is the most successful, so the only way to determine this is by looking at both sides pro's and con's.

  1. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    H.A. Prichard also believes in intuitionism. He says that no definition can be given to the word ?ought,? but we all recognise its properties. He thought there were two types of thinking ? reason and intuition. Reason looks at the facts of a situation and intuition decides what to do.

  2. Discuss the issue that it is pointless to analyse religious experience

    For him, there can be no objective study or reality of religious experience or religion as a whole, as its entire nature is subjective. The reality of any religious experience is irrelevant as long as the result is meaningful. Individual experience is key.

  1. 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

  2. Miracles are more of a Hindrance than a help to Religious Belief. Discuss.

    questions whether or not fundamental parts of religious belief are based on actions which are impossible if God is to be the perfect unchanging figure which he is believed to be. However, Christians come back again suggesting that when God created time and space he also created his interventions into

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