You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Logical positivism mounted one of the most radical assaults in the whole history of philosophy of religion. Earlier critics — Hume, the problem of evil — argued that religious claims are false or unjustified. The logical positivists made a stranger and more damaging charge: that religious claims are meaningless. To say "God exists" or "God loves us," they argued, is not to say something false; it is to say nothing at all — to utter a string of words with the grammatical form of a statement but no factual content, neither true nor false. If this is right, the entire enterprise of theology, and the apparent disagreement between believer and atheist, evaporates into thin air. This lesson sets out the Vienna Circle and its verification principle, Ayer's strong and weak forms of that principle and its application to religion, the powerful objections that brought the principle down, and the alternative falsification challenge of Antony Flew, together with the celebrated University debate replies of Hare, Mitchell and (responding to verification) Hick.
The Vienna Circle was a group of philosophers, mathematicians and scientists who met in Vienna through the 1920s and early 1930s. Leading members included Moritz Schlick (1882–1936), the group's organiser, and Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970). They were influenced by the early Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921) — though, importantly, Wittgenstein himself was not a member and did not share their hostility to metaphysics, regarding the ethical and "mystical" as deeply important even if it "shows itself" and cannot be said. From these roots the Circle developed logical positivism (or logical empiricism), whose central weapon was the verification principle: a statement has factual meaning only if it can be verified by sense experience, or is true by definition.
Key term: Verification principle — the criterion that a statement is factually meaningful only if it is either analytic (true or false by definition) or empirically verifiable (confirmable by sense experience).
On this criterion, metaphysical, theological and (the positivists added) ethical statements are not false but cognitively meaningless — "pseudo-propositions." "God exists," "the Absolute is perfect," "the soul is immortal" join "the nothing nothings" as strings of words that fail to assert anything. Schlick summed up the spirit: the meaning of a statement is its method of verification.
It is worth grasping why this challenge is so much more radical than ordinary atheism, because candidates often miss the force of it. The atheist who says "God does not exist" agrees with the believer that the sentence is meaningful — they are having a genuine dispute, in which one of them is right and the other wrong, and evidence is in principle relevant. The logical positivist denies that there is any dispute at all. If "God exists" is cognitively meaningless, then so is its negation "God does not exist," and the centuries of argument between theist and atheist have been, in Ayer's chilling phrase, sound and fury signifying nothing — a quarrel over a sentence that, despite its grammatical respectability, expresses no proposition and so cannot be either affirmed or denied. The positivist thus does not enter the debate about God; it tries to dissolve it, relocating the whole of theology (along with metaphysics and, on the emotivist account, ethics) outside the domain of fact-stating discourse altogether. This is also why the positivist challenge is properly a topic in religious language rather than in the existence of God: the question is not "is the claim true?" but "does the claim even succeed in saying anything?"
The movement also had a definite historical motivation. The Vienna Circle wrote in the shadow of two impressive developments — the spectacular progress of the empirical sciences and the new mathematical logic of Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein — and against the background of what they saw as the sterile excesses of German idealist metaphysics (Hegel, and notoriously Heidegger's talk of "the Nothing"). Their programme was reforming and even emancipatory in intent: to sweep away pseudo-knowledge, unify the sciences, and confine serious assertion to what could be checked against experience. The verification principle was the broom. The tragedy of the movement, from its own point of view, is that the broom could not survive contact with itself — but it cleared a great deal of ground first, and the rigour it demanded permanently raised the standards of clarity in philosophy of religion.
A. J. Ayer (1910–1989) carried logical positivism into the English-speaking world with Language, Truth and Logic (1936), written at twenty-five. He formulated the criterion thus: a sentence is factually significant to a given person if, and only if, that person knows what observations would lead them, under certain conditions, to accept or reject it. A meaningful statement is therefore either:
Anything that is neither is, for Ayer, "literally meaningless" — not false, but without factual content.
Applied to religion the result is uncompromising:
| Religious statement | Analytic? | Empirically verifiable? | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| "God exists" | No | No — no observation could confirm or disconfirm a transcendent God | Meaningless |
| "God is love" | No | No | Meaningless |
| "God created the world" | No | No — not testable | Meaningless |
| "The soul survives death" | No | No | Meaningless |
Ayer is explicit that this is not atheism: "Theism is as unwarranted as atheism" because the very sentence "there is a transcendent God" is meaningless, and so therefore is its denial. The believer and the atheist alike misunderstand their position if they suppose they are disputing a fact. Ayer further analysed talk of God as, at most, disguised expression of feeling — a position close to the emotivism he applied to ethics.
Ayer saw that a strong form of the principle — demanding conclusive verification — is fatal even to science. No finite set of observations can conclusively verify a universal law such as "all metals expand when heated," since we cannot test every case. He therefore adopted weak verification: a statement is meaningful if some possible observations would be relevant to — would render more or less probable — its truth or falsity.
Key term: Strong vs weak verification — strong verification demands conclusive confirmation by experience; weak verification requires only that some possible observation be relevant to the statement's probability. Ayer adopted the weak form.
Even under the weak criterion Ayer held that "God exists" fails: because God is defined as transcendent and incorporeal, no possible observation is relevant to its probability. (In the 1946 second edition Ayer reformulated the principle to block trivial loopholes, but the religious verdict was unchanged.) Critics note a tension: the weak form risks being too permissive — almost any claim can be tied to some conceivable observation — while still being declared too restrictive where it matters.
The history of the principle is, in fact, a history of repeated reformulation under pressure, which is itself telling. The strong form ("conclusively verifiable") died almost at once because it killed science along with theology. Ayer's first weak form (1936) — meaningful if some observation is "relevant" to its probability — was shown by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin and others to be hopelessly permissive: given suitable auxiliary premises, any sentence whatever can be made to yield an observation statement, so the criterion lets everything in, including "the Absolute is lazy." Ayer's revised form in the 1946 introduction tried to tighten this with talk of "directly" and "indirectly" verifiable statements; Alonzo Church promptly produced a counter-example showing the revision still admitted nonsense. This pattern — propose a criterion, find it too strong or too weak, patch it, find the patch fails — is the single most damaging fact about logical positivism, more damaging even than the self-refutation objection, because it suggests that the underlying intuition (that meaning is verifiability) cannot be made precise without either gutting science or admitting the very metaphysics it was meant to exclude. By the 1950s most philosophers, including those broadly sympathetic to empiricism, had concluded that no satisfactory formulation existed. Ayer himself, decades later, conceded in a television interview that logical positivism's defects were "that nearly all of it was false."
It is worth adding what Ayer thought religious language positively was, since he did not regard it as mere noise. On his emotivist analysis (applied first to ethics), evaluative and religious utterances express attitudes and feelings rather than state facts. "Stealing is wrong" does not assert a fact about stealing; it evinces disapproval, roughly "stealing — boo!". Similarly, talk of God may express an attitude of awe, devotion or commitment. The believer who says "God is love" is, on this view, not describing an invisible being but voicing and commending a stance towards the world. This anticipates later non-cognitive accounts (Hare's bliks, Wittgenstein's language-games, Cupitt's non-realism) and is, in a sense, complimentary — it preserves a use for religious language while denying it factual content. But it is also exactly what most believers will reject: they insist that "God exists" is meant as a claim about reality, true independently of their feelings, and that to reduce it to expressed attitude is to change the subject. The dispute between cognitivist and non-cognitivist readings of religious language is, in large part, the legacy this section bequeaths to the rest of the topic.
The most celebrated objection is that the principle is self-refuting. Consider the principle itself: "a statement is factually meaningful only if it is analytic or empirically verifiable." This sentence is not analytic (it is not true by definition), and it is not empirically verifiable (no observation confirms or disconfirms it). By its own standard it is therefore meaningless — and a meaningless criterion cannot be used to declare anything else meaningless. Ayer's reply was to demote the principle to a definition or recommendation about how to use "meaningful"; but this concedes a great deal — a mere recommendation can simply be declined, and the believer is free to recommend a different criterion.
Even in its weak form, the principle excludes far too much. Whole classes of statement that are plainly meaningful fall foul of it:
Richard Swinburne pressed a vivid version with his "toys in the cupboard" example: imagine the claim that the toys in a cupboard come out and play when no one is watching, moving back the instant before they are observed. The claim is constructed to be unverifiable — every check, by definition, interrupts the play — yet we understand it perfectly well, and can say exactly what it would mean for it to be true. We can even imagine it being false. A criterion that brands such an intelligible sentence "meaningless" has, the objection runs, simply mistaken verifiability for meaning: we grasp the meaning of countless sentences whose truth we could never check (about the remote past, the experiences of others, regions beyond the observable universe). Swinburne's example is the most economical refutation of the principle on the AQA syllabus precisely because it isolates the error — meaning outruns verifiability — without needing any controversial theological premise.
John Hick (1922–2012) argued, against Ayer, that religious claims are verifiable — just not yet. He coined eschatological verification: the claim "God exists" could in principle be verified after death by the experience of the promised end-state. His parable of the Celestial City imagines two travellers on the same road; one believes it leads to the City, the other does not. Their dispute makes no observable difference along the way, but it is "an experimental issue" — at the journey's end one will be proved right. So religious claims are not in principle unverifiable; they satisfy even Ayer's own criterion, because a possible future experience is relevant to their truth.
Key term: Eschatological verification — Hick's claim that religious assertions such as "God exists" are in principle verifiable through experiences expected after death, and so are cognitively meaningful.
The standard objection is asymmetry: the claim is verifiable but not falsifiable. If there is no afterlife, no one survives to register the falsification. Hick can reply that asymmetry is shared by ordinary unrestricted claims (a universal law can be falsified but never conclusively verified; his case is the mirror image), and that verifiability-in-principle is all his argument needs against the charge of meaninglessness.
Hick's case is strengthened by spelling out what the post-mortem verification would actually involve, since it is not simply "we will see God." He argued that two things, together, would verify the Christian claim: first, continued conscious existence after bodily death (which would already falsify a thoroughgoing materialism); and second, an experience that fulfilled the specifically Christian expectation — communion with God in the Kingdom, the moral and spiritual completion of persons in fellowship with Christ. Either element alone is striking; together they would, Hick thought, place the truth of theism beyond reasonable doubt for the one who experienced them. This is why his Celestial City parable insists the dispute is "not a factual dispute" only "in the sense that the travellers cannot now find out who is right" — it is genuinely experimental, just deferred. A further objection presses that the very idea of recognising the post-mortem state as the fulfilment of theism presupposes the religious framework it is meant to confirm (would a sceptic, surviving death, necessarily interpret the experience as "God"?); Hick's later work on eschatology and the "eschatological pan-religious" verification of "the Real" grapples with exactly this. For the purposes of the meaning debate, however, the modest point stands: a claim with conceivable verification conditions, even post-mortem ones, is not the vacuous utterance the positivist alleged.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.