Religious Language

The problem of religious language is one of the central debates in the philosophy of religion. When believers say "God is good" or "God loves us," what do these statements mean? God is, by definition, transcendent — beyond human experience and comprehension. How can human language, developed to describe finite, physical realities, meaningfully describe an infinite, non-physical God? This lesson examines the major philosophical positions on religious language, from the radical scepticism of logical positivism to the constructive proposals of analogy, symbol, and language games.

---

The Verification Principle

Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle

The Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers and scientists active in the 1920s and 1930s (including Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, and Friedrich Waismann), developed logical positivism — the view that the only meaningful statements are those that are either analytically true (true by definition, such as "all bachelors are unmarried") or empirically verifiable (capable of being tested by sense experience).

A.J. Ayer's Application

A.J. Ayer (1910–1989) brought logical positivism to the English-speaking world in Language, Truth and Logic (1936). Ayer distinguished between two types of meaningful statement:

Type	Definition	Example
Analytic	True by definition — the predicate is contained in the subject	"All triangles have three sides"
Synthetic	True or false depending on empirical evidence — can be verified by sense experience	"It is raining outside"

Any statement that is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable is, according to Ayer, literally meaningless — it does not express a genuine proposition. Religious statements such as "God exists," "God is love," or "God created the world" are neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. Therefore, they are meaningless — not false, but devoid of cognitive content.

Key Definition: Verification Principle — The principle that a statement is only meaningful if it is either analytically true (true by definition) or empirically verifiable (capable of being confirmed or disconfirmed by sense experience).

Ayer distinguished between strong verification (a statement is meaningful only if it can be conclusively verified) and weak verification (a statement is meaningful if experience can make it probable). Even under weak verification, religious statements fail — no possible observation could make "God exists" more or less probable.

Criticisms of the Verification Principle:

• Self-refuting — the verification principle itself is neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. By its own criteria, it is meaningless.
• Too restrictive — it rules out as meaningless many statements that are clearly significant: ethical statements ("murder is wrong"), aesthetic judgements ("Beethoven's Ninth is beautiful"), historical claims about unobservable past events, and scientific laws (which describe universal patterns that cannot be conclusively verified).
• Ayer himself acknowledged that the principle is not a statement of fact but a proposal about how to use language — a recommendation rather than a discovery.

---

The Falsification Principle

Flew's Challenge

Antony Flew (1923–2010) posed a different challenge in his falsification symposium (1955), based on Karl Popper's philosophy of science. Flew argued that a statement is only meaningful if it is possible to specify what would count as evidence against it — what would falsify it.

Flew used the parable of the gardener (adapted from John Wisdom): two explorers discover a clearing in the jungle. One claims a gardener tends the clearing; the other disagrees. They set up surveillance — no gardener is detected. The believer modifies the claim: the gardener is invisible, intangible, undetectable. Flew asks: how does an invisible, intangible, undetectable gardener differ from no gardener at all? If no possible evidence could count against "God exists," the statement "dies the death of a thousand qualifications" — it has been emptied of all meaning.

Key Definition: Falsification Principle — The principle, associated with Antony Flew, that a statement is only genuinely meaningful (asserting something about reality) if it is possible to specify what observations or evidence would count against it.

Hare's Bliks

R.M. Hare (1919–2002) responded to Flew with the concept of bliks — unfalsifiable ways of seeing the world that are not factual claims but still profoundly important. Hare's example: a paranoid student is convinced that all university dons want to murder him. No evidence can shake this conviction — friendly behaviour is interpreted as cunning disguise. The student's blik is unfalsifiable but not meaningless — it determines how he interprets everything.

Hare argued that religious beliefs are bliks — they are not factual claims about the world but fundamental attitudes or interpretive frameworks that shape how believers see everything. However, this concedes Flew's point: if religious language does not make factual claims, it does not assert that God actually exists.

Mitchell's Parable

Basil Mitchell (1917–2011) responded to Flew with the parable of the partisan and the stranger. During wartime, a partisan meets a stranger who claims to be the leader of the resistance. Sometimes the stranger is seen helping the resistance; sometimes he is seen in the company of the enemy. The partisan's trust in the stranger is tested but not destroyed by the counter-evidence. Religious believers, Mitchell argued, do recognise that suffering counts against God's goodness — but they maintain trust in God despite the evidence, not by ignoring it. Religious language is falsifiable in principle, but believers have reasons (revelation, experience, commitment) for not allowing the evidence to count decisively against their beliefs.