Further Exploration of Religious Language - The Verification Principle

The topic of religious language questions whether or not religious language holds any meaning and if it is effective or not. Scholars have postulated theories as to what makes language meaningful or not, such as the verification principle.
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss Linguist, believed that language was made of three components - a sign, a signifier and a signified. A sign is the word itself (e.g. "chair"), the signifier is the components that create the word ("c-h-a-i-r"), and the signified is the concept (knowledge of what a chair actually is). Saussure argued that without knowledge of all three components then communication that was both effective and meaningful could not be achieved.
This presented a large problem to religious language due to the nature of the concept of God. Although all parties may be aware of the sign, "God", and the signifier, "G-o-d", when discussing God, they all may have a different concept (signified) of God. This means that they are not communicating about God in a meaningful way, as they are all thinking of different things (whether those be small or large differences).
However, it could be argued, using Kant's theory of conceptual schemes, that every individual has an innate knowledge of God. This seemingly fixes the problem created by the nature of language, but creates the problem of trapping God as a concept alone. All of this raises the question as to whether or not it is meaningful to talk about God at all.

Logical positivists believe that something is true if it can be positively verified through empirical evidence, and that only true statements can hold meaning, paired with a belief that meaning is derived from the objective, factual significance of the statement. Using the verification principle, logical positivists are led to the conclusion that God-talk (talking about God in a meaningful way), is impossible. The verification principle states that if a statement is neither analytically nor empirically verifiable, it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless. Because statements about God cannot be verified, they are considered meaningless. This is not a question of whether or not they are true or false, but that if they cannot be shown to be true or false then it is meaningless to consider them.

AJ Ayer initially argued that statements were either analytically or synthetically true, and so were either true by definition or verified through empirical evidence. However, this caused problems as there are very few statements which can be completely verified through evidence, which Ayer would like to accept, such as the Big Bang Theory. He therefore revised this, arguing that statements that were potentially verifiable or falsifiable could also hold meaning. This corrected the problem caused by his first argument, but caused almost the opposite problem in that nearly every statement could be potentially verified or falsified. This prompted a response from John Hicks, who argued that statements about God possessed meaning as they were eschatologically verifiable (verifiable in the 'end times').

Hicks and Swinburne both suggest that statements about God hold meaning, and can be discussed (whether they be potentially verifiable or eschatologically so). This suggests the contrary to Ayer - that "God-talk is evidently not nonsense" (Swinburne). Aside from this, meaning seems to derive from many different things, leaving Ayer's argument logically sound but seemingly meaningless itself.

An Introduction to Religious Language

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.