Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

Authors Avatar

Relgious lnaunge is meanignless dicuss

religious language is the communication of ideas about God, faith, belief and practice. The problem with religious language is that individuals have different interpretations of these concepts and will result in a difference in the use of everyday language. For some it is deemed meaningless because it is equivocal and the meaning is unclear. Yet, for some philosophers, religious language is meaningful and serves a purpose. This essay argument will disagree with the statement theat religious language is meaningless, as religious language is subjective.

The logical positivists  believed that language is only meaningful if it is either analytically or synthetically verified. Analytic statements are a priori & inductive . This means that the meanings behind the assertion can be found logically within it. For example, the statement “all bachelors are male” contains all the information needed within it to make the conclusion of whether it is true or false. The meaning of the word ‘bachelor’ indicates that they are male. It is a logical statement and therefore the logical positivists would regard this statement as meaningful.

Synthetic statements are a posteriori & deductive . This means that the meanings behind an assertion can be found by empirically  testing the claims a statement is asserting. For example, the claim “it’s raining outside” can be verified by someone going outside and feeling for rain using sense and empirical measures to find the conclusion. For logical positivists statements aren’t only meaningful if they contain truths, they also have meaning if they can be proven false as long as the meaning behind the assertion can be concluded as certain. They concluded that it is meaningless to talk about God as the statements made about such a being cannot be analytically or synthetically verified. Therefore what logical positivist believe supports the statement that religious language is meaningless

Join now!

Many philosophers challenged the verification principle and rejected it. 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. This would be accepted by the weak form of the verification principle as in theory we know how to verify the statement (when we die). This therefore shows that religious language can be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay