When studying religious language one becomes aware of several problems. These include the meaningfulness of language and problems presented by verification and falsification processes.
Saussure - Course in General Linguistics
It is important to first understand the elements that make up language. Swiss linguist, Saussure postulated that there were three elements to language - a sign, a signifier and the signified. Saussure argued that without knowledge of all three elements understanding could not be gained and that they were all essential to meaning and communication.
For example, the word "pen". One must be aware of the word itself (the sign), the signifier "p-e-n", and the signified - the concept of a pen. Without any one of these, meaningful communication about the pen is impossible.
This presents a problem to religious language, most notably when discussing God. Is it possible to understand the signified "God"? Do we all mean the same thing? If different people have different concepts of the signified "God", are we communicating effectively about him? Is any of what we say meaningful?
Kant's "conceptual schemes" argues that individuals possess some innate knowledge, that some signifieds are universal. 'Conceptual schemes' are how we try to interpret the world, what we innately possess and use to interpret our experiences. Some theologians argue that God is an example of a conceptual scheme, that we all possess an innate knowledge of God. This would potentially fix the problem in talking about God that is discussed above (as if everyone has the same innate knowledge of the concept of God, the sign and the signifier, then we can communicate about him in a meaningful way), but has the problem of trapping God as a concept.
AJ Ayer - Logical Positivism and The Verification Principle
"What can be said about God?"
--> "God-talk" - being able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent way.
This is not a question of whether or not God exists, but rather what God is like and if we can discuss that in a meaningful fashion. The verification principle is concerned with working out whether or not religious language means anything.
Logical positivists would argue that something is only true (and therefore have meaning) if it can be positively verified using empirical evidence. Therefore, to a logical positivist, statements about God are meaningless as they cannot be verified and do not correspond to anything in reality. This makes statements such as "God exists." and "God is love." meaningless as they cannot be verified. AJ Ayer argued that there was no point in even raising questions about God's nature and existence as there is nothing meaningful to talk about.
Wittgenstein (1889-1951) raised the question of the meaning of language and influenced the first logical positivists (Vienna Circle led by
Maritz Schlick). Questioned "the meaning of meaning".
These first logical positivists followed the thinking of
August Comte and held the belief that theological interpretations belonged in the past, leaving God as a "God of the gaps".
Cognitive (realist) language: factual statements; proven true or false using empirical evidence.
Non-cognitive (anti-realist) language: cannot be verified but nor can they be falsified; context dependent; can include symbols, myths, metaphors, etc.
Analytic statements: true by definition (tautology) and cannot be false; the wording of the statement verifies its truth (e.g. "the circle is round").
Synthetic statements: a posteriori statements which can be verified or falsified through empirical evidence; these statements are considered meaningful, as they can, in theory, hold verifiable or falsifiable truths.
AJ Ayer was criticised as many statements that he would like to consider meaningful may not be completely verified (such as scientific theories, e.g. the big bang theory, the theory of evolution). He therefore made the allowance of statements having meaning if they are
potentially verifiable. This however opened the door to almost any statement, leading
John Hicks to argue that statements about God and religious language have meaning as they are eschatologically verifiable (i.e. verifiable in the 'end times').
The Verification Principle: if a statement is neither analytically nor empirically verifiable, it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless.
When this is applied to God-talk, the conclusion is that it is meaningless and pointless. Statements about God's existence cannot be contradicted as they are not significant propositions - they are neither true nor false.
Can we talk about God in a meaningful way?
Yes:
- Concepts have meaning to individuals, small differences in understanding do not make conversation about the concept meaningless.
- A di-polar God (Process theology) can have qualities in the physical world; the incarnation shows God to be in the physical world --> God in the physical world allows communication about those verifiable and easily understood concepts.
- Aquinas; Anselm: God gave human beings language and reason so we could talk about God in a meaningful way.
- Differences in opinion about the meaning of "meaning" --> God-talk may be meaningful to some and not to others.
No:
- Logical positivists: concept of God cannot be verified or falsified and so has no meaning.
- Hume: God is outside our experience and understanding and so it is therefore meaningless to discuss him.
- Transcendent God is outside our empirical and understandable world.
Swinburne: "God-talk is evidently not nonsense." Verificationism makes many statements "meaningless" and therefore difficult to talk about.
AJ Ayer: "meaningless: not factually significant (in an objective sense)." How do we verify a proposition?
Practical Verifiability and Verifiability in Practice
Practical: can be tested in reality.
Principle: potentially verifiable, lack the technical ability to do so (e.g. we do not have the capacity to verify if there is life elsewhere in the universe).
Strong verification: verified conclusively using evidence.
Weak verification: shown to be probable by observation and experience.