Logical positivism
The Vienna Circle was a group of logical positivists who believed that all talk of God and religious
experience belonged to an unenlightened ‘theological era’ when God was used as an explanation for
anything that science had not yet resolved.
Ayer, a member of the circle, articulated that statements are only meaningful if they are either analytic
or verifiable using the senses. This is his ‘verification principle.’
Analytic statements are propositions that are by true by definition e.g tautologies or mathematical
statements.
Synthetic statements go beyond mere definitions and in order to be meaningful, they had to be
verifiable using empirical evidence.
If a statement is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable it is meaningless.
- AO2: This way of thinking followed Hume who argued that a statement that does not contain
any abstract reasoning or experimental reasoning says nothing at all.
For Ayer, a statement only had to be empirically verifiable in principle. You do not necessarily have to go
as far as testing the statement but have to know the means by which you could.
If synthetic statements are only meaningful if they can be tested empirically, then religious claims could
be considered meaningless. Claims such as ‘God created the world’ or ‘God has a plan for each of us’
cannot be shown to be either true or false using the senses. Believers cannot state under what
circumstances they would call these claims true or false, or what kind of test would settle the matter.
What are criticisms or counters to Ayer’s verification principle?
1. The most significant criticism was that the statement of the theory itself does not pass the test and is
therefore not a meaningful statement. The verifiability theory is not a universally accepted definition, so
not analytic, nor can it be verified by sense experience.
2. Logical positivists wanted to dismiss as meaningless all claims made about God, while keeping
scientific statements as meaningful. However, the idea that all meaningful synthetic statements have to
be empirically verifiable rules out many of the claims made by advances in science, such as the Big Bang
which we have no experience of.
3. Similarly, historical statements, where claims are made about events that happened in the past,
cannot be tested using the senses and neither can ethical statements such as ‘torture is wrong.’ All
dialogue is meaningless, as well as emotions. Telling someone that you love them is meaningless.
Logical positivists accepted that there was a problem with the verification principle, and that they were
disallowing too much as meaningless, so the theory was diluted to allow for ‘indirect experience’ and
‘weak verification.’ In later life, Ayer accepted that much of Language, Truth and Logic was wrong.
4. This ‘weak verification’ opens it up to verifying scripture in the Bible which could be regarded as
historical documents.
5. John Hick argued that religious truth claims about God and heaven are ‘eschatologically verifiable’ and
will be verified after death. As they can be verified in principle, they are then meaningful.
, Wittgenstein’s language games
Wittgenstein explored how the same language could be used in entirely different contexts. For example,
a ‘key’ could be used in the context of music, opening a door, a map or referring to a vital piece of
information. He concluded that the meaning of a term is best understood in its context and used the
term ‘lebensform’ or ‘form of life’ to denote the context in which language is used.
Wittgenstein argues that language is used in a similar way to games, which we know how to play once
we understand the rules.
The meaning of religious language depends on the ‘game’ in which it is spoken and understood. To say,
‘God is love’ is meaningful for those within the Christian language ‘game’ but not those in the atheist
‘game.’ Consequently, those outside a language game cannot criticize it or disagree.
There is no ultimate rule about how language should be used.
Religious language, like definitions, are ‘groundless beliefs’ but still shape the way in which we
understand the world. Our beliefs about whether there is a Last Judgement, for example, will be
groundless wether we believe them or not as we cannot produce any evidence for or against them.
However, they will shape the way we think and the decisions we make.
If you want to participate in Christianity, then the statement ‘God loves us’, for example, is something
that you just have to accept with the rest of the community, like a chess player has to accept that,
within the game of chess, a bishop can only move diagonally. As you become more immersed in
Christianity you will develop a deeper understanding of what ‘God loves us’ means and apply it to your
own life.
For Wittgenstein, language-games are non-cognitive. Religious language does not make statements of
fact but is still meaningful to the person who is part of that game as it will shape their life.
AO2: There are similarities to Tillich’s symbols which are meaningful for the individual.
Cupitt agreed with Wittgenstein, contending that God is an existing reality only within communities of
faith. This view, theological non-realism, focuses on the importance of God in people's lives and suggests
that God does not refer to an objective truth. Like Wittgenstein, this is a non-cognitive approach.
Nielsen worries that the idea of language games causes reality and reason to become ambiguous and
confusing, as their meaning is determined differently within each game. It devalues the importance of
truth.
Conclusion point - The question comes down to what we mean by meaningful: being objectively verified
or having a profound impact on people’s lives.
Comparing Aquinas to Wittgenstein
They both held the belief that God is essentially unknowable. Aquinas acknowledged that there are
limitations on how much we, as finite humans, can understand about the nature of God. Wittgenstein
also argued that these questions of God are beyond what humans can know.
They both argued that religious language has to be understood in a particular way if it is to have
meaning.
