Religious Language as cognitive, but meaningless Verification (A.J. Ayer) – religious language as meaningless; there can be no way in which we could verify the truth or falsehood of the proposition (e.g. God is good, murder is wrong) Info from Eduqas on Logical Positivism

Knowledge test What A Level exam is religious language on? What is meant by the term cognitive? What is the problem with claiming religious language is cognitive? Define ‘objective’ Define ‘subjective’ What is meant by anthropomorphic? Name one other problem with defining God? Why is it difficult to understand the phrase ‘God is love’?

Background and influences – complete the A3/4 summary sheet Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), raised the question of the meaning of language, asking what the necessary conditions for something to have any meaning at all might be, and how it is conveyed from one person to another in short they were discussing ‘the meaning of meaning’ David Hume and empiricism We get all our knowledge from our sense experience. Why is this a problem for religious language? Science Evidence based Testable

The Logical Positivists What can you remember? Wittgenstein was a strong influence on the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers led by the writer Moritz Schlick who met throughout the 1920’s and 30’s. They held the belief that theological interpretations (based on God) of events and experiences belonged in the past, to an unenlightened age when ‘God’ was used as an explanation for anything that science had not yet completely mastered. Leaving God as ‘the god of the gaps’. They believed that any discussion about anything that could not logically (and by use of the senses) be proven (verified)to be true (positive) was meaningless. Thus, Logical Positivism.

Discuss the following statements: Jenny’s car is blue. 2. There is a small hobbit sat under my desk that becomes invisible when anyone looks at it, can move quicker than any human who tries to touch it and never makes a sound. 3. 2 + 2 = 4 4. All humans are mortal. 5. A bachelor is an unmarried man 6. There is life on other planets. 7. It is currently snowing at the South Pole. How can these statement can be verified or shown to be true?

What does the Verification Principle think is meaningful language What does the Verification Principle think is meaningful language? Complete the next box on the sheet Analytic Statement True by definition (tautology) and cannot be false a priori statements which are true because the wording of the statement verifies its truth e.g. ‘The widow was once married’, ‘the circle is round’. Mathematical Statements 5 + 5 does add up to 10, if it adds up to 9 then a simple recalculation would solve the issue. Synthetic Statements a posteriori statements which can be verifiable or falsified through empirical evidence e.g. ‘It is currently snowing at the South Pole’. These statements are considered meaningful as they can, in theory, hold verifiable or falsifiable truths. Which of these statements would be meaningful according to the Verification Principle: Dogs bark Swans are green There is life on other planets Ice cream is cold I love my children

Implications for religious language The Verification Principle concluded that religious statements were meaningless because religious language claims are subjective and cannot therefore be empirically tested and verified In Language, Truth and Logic (Penguin, 1936), A J Ayer observed that, since the existence of God cannot be rationally demonstrated, it is not even probable, since the term ‘god’ is a metaphysical term referring to a transcendent being which cannot therefore have any literal significance. Question: What is meant by ‘probable’? As such, Ayer observed that the same had therefore to be the case for atheistic and agnostic statements, since any statement which includes the term ‘god’ is meaningless. Ayer argued that, since claims about God’s existence cannot be contradicted, they are not ‘significant propositions’ – they are neither true nor false, but cannot be valid. ‘The notion of a being whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all’.

Implications for religious language Ayer was not simply concerned with talking about God, but also with all other religious language, including: Talk of an after life, which cannot be verified either. Talk of a soul he dismissed as meaningless since it is a metaphysical assertion to say that ‘there is something imperceptible inside a man, which is his soul or his real self, and that it goes on living after he is dead’. Talk of religious experience was also soundly dismissed by Ayer as being talk of experience which cannot be validated empirically: ‘The fact that people have religious experiences is interesting from the psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply that there is such as thing as religious knowledge’.

Discuss the following statements Discuss the following statements. What issues arise for the Logical Positivists? “All ravens are black” “The view from my hotel window is beautiful” “The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066”

Verificationism does not allow for statements that are not either empirically verifiable or tautologies. Such statements are considered as meaningless, by which they mean the statement literally has no meaning in a factual sense. As a result, statements regarding beauty or expressing a preference are meaningless. The beauty of a piece of art, a view, or a person cannot be decided on the basis of observation, nor can it be answered ‘true’ or ‘false’

Problems with the verification principle Richard Swinburne in ‘God-talk is Not Evidently Nonsense’ challenges verificationism giving the example ‘All ravens are (at all times) black’. Swinburne points out that whilst people generally accept ravens are black, there is no way to ever confirm this statement, as however many ravens you look at there is always the possibility of there being one more raven that is not black. Therefore, according to verificationism, the statement is meaningless. Universal scientific statements A further problem lies with historical events and statements made about them. Saying the battle of Hastings happened in 1066 is not verifiable by us using our sense experiences and observations.

Ayer’s response to the problems A.J. Ayer firstly clarified what was meant by meaningless, this being a statement that is not ‘factually significant’ (Language, Truth & Logic). Ayer was not denying that people make statements that are important to them, such as ‘God answers my prayers’ they are just unverifiable so have no factual significance. So, how do you verify a proposition?

Strong and Weak Verification Ayer distinguished between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification. Strong verification (in practice) applied anything that can be verified conclusively using empirical evidence e.g. What are the problems with this? Ravens, history, generalisations Weak verification (in principle) refers to statements that are verifiable in principle, this means that I would know what I would have to do in order to verify it. What sort of statements would this allow? Ayer suggested weak verification should be form used as strong verification has no real application e.g. ‘All humans are mortal’.

The verification principle: A.J.Ayer – interviewed by Brian Magee Ayer on logical positivism Ayer on the verification principle Ayer on Strong and Weak Find 3 new pieces of information from the interview with Ayer – add them to your notes Video summary of the falsification principle Watch before next lesson

Knowledge Test 1 1 Complete the following mnemonic that highlights the problems facing religious language C A T L I K   2. Where did the logical positivists meet? 3. Explain the meaning of cognitive   4. . . and non-cognitive 5. Define an analytic statement and give an example 6. Define a synthetic statement and give an example 7. What areas religious language did the logical positivists consider to be meaningless? Give 2 specific examples. 8. Why does the verification principle pose a problem for scientific and historical statements? 9. Explain the strong verification principle. 10. Explain the weak verification principle