This essay gives a detailed evaluative argument on the verification principle (as titled) as well as an added paragraph for extra evaluation, also this document includes a page of summarised points of the whole essay I have taken my time to write this and got an A* and got 37/40 marks
‘Ayer’s verification principle presents a convincing approach to the understanding of religious
language.’ Discuss
Ayer, proposed the verification principle as an attempt to verify language as meaningful and
authoritative he proposes a new way to challenge religious language, language used for centuries by
religion has suddenly been confronted by this new challenge of science which promises knowledge
based on evidence .Language is said to be cognitive or non-cognitive. cognitive statements are
subject to cognition and can be verified empirically they are analytic statements. Non cognitive
statements do not express propositions and are neither true or false The debate is where religious
language fits into this distinction. When a religious person says "God is exists", it looks like they are
expressing a cognitive belief, but some philosophers argue that it is really more of a non-cognitive
feeling. Ultimately Ayer does not present a convincing argument as due to its metaphysical nature it
is illogical to argue that religious statements are meaningless as this is simply not possible.
Wittgenstein and his language games provides a better explanation of religious language through the
use of language games
The verification principle formed part of the logical positivist movement and influenced by the
Vienna circle which aimed at rejecting non empirical language as meaningless therefore, Ayer
rendered 'statement are only meaningful if it can be verified analytically or synthetically. If such
verification cannot take place, they become meaningless.' He classified language as meaningful
under two criteria if it is a tautology (true by its own definition), and a empirically verifiable
proposition (if it can be proven) this therefore render religious language as meaningless as it can
neither be proven empirically 'God' is a metaphysical term according to Ayer, which means it is about
something beyond the empirical world, so there can be no way to empirically verify it. It could be
argued that Ayer attempts to place emphasis on scientific language which provides a clear criteria
explicit in demands to be classified meaningful so we are certain in language we used is based upon
cognition, However, Ayers theory is criticized for being overly restricted in meaning for example
history would be classified as meaningless since it cannot be empirically verifiable Ayer addresses
this issue and came up with a weak verification. We can weakly verify anything for which there is
some evidence which provides probability for it being the case. E.g. Historical documents and
archaeological findings can be verified, and on the basis of those we can weakly verify that there
were certain civilizations in the past with certain histories to them. Although Ayer addresses the
issue of potentially verifying statements one of the major flaws within his theory is that the
verification principle fails at its very own criteria as the verification principle itself cannot be proven
empirically and is neither a tautology making it an ineffective method to determine whether or not
Religious statements can or should be determined as meaningless, since the very criterion fails the
test of empiricism itself therefore it can be argued that Ayer verification principle is inefficient to use
as an approach, Additionally Hick argued that when we die, the truth of God's existence can be
verified as either true or false. This is known as the eschatological verification which can only be
verified the day we die .
Thus making it possible to argue that in fact religious statements are meaningful perhaps after death.
Moreover the ineffectiveness of the verification principle therefore suggests that in fact religious
statements can be meaningful as they are not statements that can not be verified using the
verification principle as faith and religion is not something which can be verified, like the emotion
music arises within an individual, you can not put a measure or verify these feelings. Thus making
this an ineffective method to determine the meaningfulness of religious statements.
To overcome, the weaknesses of the verification principle, Karl Popper proposes the falsification
principle, which renders a statement can be a genuine scientific assertion if it is possible to say how it
can be disproven empirically, true empiricism operates on falsification not verification. Anthony Flew
, was inspired by the falsification principle and argued that Christians hold this cognitive dissonance
where they are constantly changing the goal post he gave the example of the parable of the Gardner
where in short the One claims there is a gardener who tends to it, so the other suggest waiting and
seeing if that is true. After a while, the other claims there is an invisible gardener in the same way
religious people defend God a classic example is the problem of evil where Christians will argue that
God is all, loving or God gave human free will thus he is not responsible Flew called this 'death by a
thousand qualifications' religious statements are unfalsifiable and fails to assert anything bout reality
falsification principle presents a convincing argument to religious language since this perhaps
provides stability, it captures how science is actually done better than verificationism. Scientists don't
only look for verifications of a theory, they try to test and disprove it too by looking for falsifications
of it perhaps Popper .
However, R. M. Hare criticizes Flew he suggest that falsification can be used for cognitive statements
only but it cannot be used for non cognitive statements because althoguh religious language cannot
be falsified it doesn't mean that it does not have no meaning. He uses the example of the student
and the university dons. The student was convinced that the 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. Hare goes on to
say that looking at the world in this way is seen as a "blik." Religious beliefs are 'bliks' because of the
impact they have on every individual's life and the way believers look at their lives that is different to
somebody else's.
Thus making Popper and Flews attempt to justify religious statements as meaningless as
unconvincing arguments as meaning can only be determined by the individual which is neither
explained by the verification principle or falsification principle
Wittgenstein's approach to religious language can be seen as being the most convincing as he argued
that the meaning of words is in their use agreed by a particular group or society using them, arguing
that every activity has their own unique language and Wittgenstein regarded this rather like a game
with its own set of rules. Language games exist within all forms of human activities and lives. For
Wittgenstein people who are not in the game will not understand the use of the language and will
find it meaningless to them. Religious belief has its own language and non believers will find religious
language meaningless as they are not in the religious "game." He uses the example of a person and a
train driving, where by the outsider would not understand the importance of each leaver and thus
for them it is meaningless where as an experienced train driver each part has a meaning. Critics of
Wittgenstein points out that due to the individual differences between faiths, it becomes difficult for
faiths to share their beliefs to its full depth as people would not be able to fully understand its
meaning and significance making it meaningless. Peter Geach further cristises this argument as he
calls it a a circular argument as the meaning takes from the definition which in turn takes meaning
from the game. Although these criticisms hold strength the merits of Witgenstein argument
outweighs it as he acknowledges that religious language hold meaning to a believer because of the
understanding they have of it, this understanding can not be falsified nor verified as it is a non
cognitive matter. Thus making this a convincing argument to support the idea that religious language
are meaningful
Extra paragraph for evaluation: extra para on Tillich and Randall
Paul Tillich and J. R. Randall had similar ideas concerning religious language. Tillich used ordinary
language to point to God but spoke of the words used as symbols. He distinguished between a sign
and a symbol. A sign is a conventional way of pointing to something, e.g. a road sign. A symbol is
something that stands or is used in place of something else. Tillich held God could only be described
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller zarahbzahid. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.