Religious Language (A Level)

Question 1

Criticisms of the Verification Principle (Ayer)

Answer 1

• Verification Principle does not even support the science it claims to uphold - under the principle, statements such as ‘atoms exist’ and ‘forces are real’ are not meaningful, but science would argue that something does not necessarily have to be physically observed in order to exist. Swinburne gives the example of the statement ‘all ravens are black’ - ravens can mostly be assumed to be black, but there is a possibility that one is not, making all universal statements meaningless despite the assumption being largely true
• The principles makes any historical statements meaningless as they cannot be verified by observation (not synthetic) or logic (not analytical), so any statement about the past would be invalid, e.g. William of Normandy defeated Harold Godwinson cannot be argued logically or empirically
• Hick argued that statements can be verified after death through eschatological verification, giving the Parable of the Celestial City

Question 2

Criticisms of the Falsification Principle (Flew)

Answer 2

• Basil Mitchell gives the example of a resistance leader to show that a person may make a meaningful statement on trust because of prior faith, even if evidence appears to undermine this trust. Mitchell suggests a resistance fighter may meet a stranger who tells him that he is the leader of the resistance during a war. The fighter is convinced and trusts him - though the stranger can sometimes be observed working on his side and on the side of the enemy, arresting his friends, the fighter remains convinced of the stranger’s truth. In the same way, religious statements, though not easily falsifiable, are meaningful due to the believer’s trust in God
• R.M. Hare (‘Blicks’) - Hare argues that religious language can still be meaningful despite not being falsifiable as religious language is non-cognitive (does not make factual claims about the world). Hare illustrates in the Parable of the Lunatic a lunatic who believes that all university professors want to kill him, no amount of evidence of kindly professors dissuading him - to the lunatic the view is unfalsifiable. Hare called this kind of