'Religious Language Is Meaningless' Discuss

1065 Words5 Pages
‘Religious Language is meaningless’ Discuss Religious language is the communication of ideas, words and practices used to describe god. Some deem religious language meaningless as there is simply no way we can verify it whereas others see it from different perspective. This is due to many different forms of language linked with religion; cognitive and non cognitive, synthetic and analytical, univocal, equivocal and analogy. Synthetic, equivocal and non cognitive all would enforce the concept that religious language is subjective and that we are able to gain better knowledge of god from what he is not than what he is. Those supporting these points have been 19th century philosophers A.J Ayer and Antony Flew however their argument is apposed by those who believe it is meaningful as we simply do not know how to falsify the language. At the heart of this argument stood John Hick as he defined religious language as ‘believing in something and experiencing something’. Logical positivists thought up the concept of the verification principle in the 1920’s while in Vienna. Spearheading this movement was British philosopher A.J Ayer (1910-1989) and his argument was that in fact religious language is meaningless due to the lack of empirical evidence. He said that a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is known how we can prove it is either true or false. If such empirical verification cannot happen then the proposition becomes meaningless. At this point he separated between a ‘strong verification principle’ and a ‘weak verification principle’. The weak proposition simply means that if we know how to verify a statement it becomes meaningful whereas the strong principle relies upon empirical evidence to prove a statement to be true or false. So for example if I where to study ancient history according to the strong verification principle all propositions would be

More about 'Religious Language Is Meaningless' Discuss

Open Document