Critical Assessment: That Religious Language is Meaningless
Critically assess the view that religious language is meaningless (35)
The view that religious language is meaningless is one that is shared by many as the religious statements claims can’t validated by evidence and equally can’t be falsified. In addition some hold the view that we can’t talk meaningfully about a being greater than ourselves as our language is limited in describing a being as great as God. However, there are those that believe we can meaningfully make religious statements so long as they meet a certain criteria and aren’t intended as literal.
Religious language being meaningless is an outlook shared by the logical positivists who have their origins in a group called the Vienna Circle in the 1920-30s. This group of philosophers believed that statements are only meaningful if they are able to be verified by an actually experience or is a tautology; a statements that is true by definition, this is the verification principle. Any statements that don’t meet this criteria are merely opinions which have no value or worth. For example the statement ‘I believe God is evil’ is meaningless unless it can be verified empirically as it isn’t true be definition (tautology). The views of the logical positivists and the Vienna Circle are that metaphysics, religion and ethics should be avoided and the importance of knowledge through science should be advocated. It should be noted however that logical positivist aren’t saying that God doesn’t exist, just that it is meaningless to talk about the issue of God’s existence. This view however has been criticised for being too rigid as it suggests we can’t make statements about certain historical events as they can’t be proven with physical evidence. In addition, the verification principle becomes stuck by its own definition, using the definition of verification the verification principle becomes meaningless as its isn’t a tautology and can’t be proven be actually experience, therefore why should we bother to abide by
The view that religious language is meaningless is one that is shared by many as the religious statements claims can’t validated by evidence and equally can’t be falsified. In addition some hold the view that we can’t talk meaningfully about a being greater than ourselves as our language is limited in describing a being as great as God. However, there are those that believe we can meaningfully make religious statements so long as they meet a certain criteria and aren’t intended as literal.
Religious language being meaningless is an outlook shared by the logical positivists who have their origins in a group called the Vienna Circle in the 1920-30s. This group of philosophers believed that statements are only meaningful if they are able to be verified by an actually experience or is a tautology; a statements that is true by definition, this is the verification principle. Any statements that don’t meet this criteria are merely opinions which have no value or worth. For example the statement ‘I believe God is evil’ is meaningless unless it can be verified empirically as it isn’t true be definition (tautology). The views of the logical positivists and the Vienna Circle are that metaphysics, religion and ethics should be avoided and the importance of knowledge through science should be advocated. It should be noted however that logical positivist aren’t saying that God doesn’t exist, just that it is meaningless to talk about the issue of God’s existence. This view however has been criticised for being too rigid as it suggests we can’t make statements about certain historical events as they can’t be proven with physical evidence. In addition, the verification principle becomes stuck by its own definition, using the definition of verification the verification principle becomes meaningless as its isn’t a tautology and can’t be proven be actually experience, therefore why should we bother to abide by