- Realists believe that language corresponds to reality, while anti-realists see language and reality as separate. Debates around religious language depend on these theories. - Religious language involves both cognitive claims that can be verified, as well as non-cognitive language expressing emotion. Verificationists argue religious claims must be empirically verifiable to have meaning, while falsificationists say they must at least be falsifiable. - Later thinkers like Wittgenstein argued that meaning depends on use within a language game or form of life, not verification. Religious language may have meaning for believers without needing to satisfy philosophical tests of meaning.

1. Religious Language

2. An Introduction
There have been two main approaches to the problems of
religious language. Realists take as their starting point the
idea that language corresponds to reality: for every
statement we make there is a state of affairs that exists if
that statement is true. This is called the correspondence
theory.(Or a cognitive theory of meaning). On the other
hand, anti-realists consider reality fundamentally separate
from language, and insist that meaning is a matter of
coherence, not correspondence: a statement achieves
meaning and truth through its relationship to other ideas
or activities. This is called the coherence theory (or a non-
cognitive theory of meaning). Attempts to understand or
analyze religious language usually depends upon one or
other of these theories.

3. Basic Feature of Language
Cognitive language
- Conveys factual information
Non-cognitive language
- Language that does not depend on external fact.
- Cannot be observed.
- Conveys emotions (eg. express hopes and fears)

4. Analytic and Synthetic Statements
— Analytic statements (tautology- true by definition)
- Explains the meaning of its terms
- Does not depend on any evidence
- True in all cases and all the time- For example: Ice is the
solid state of water; bachelors are single
— Synthetic statements
- Requires reference to external evidence- For example:
There is a cat on the floor. (You need to be able to see a
cat on the floor in order for the statement to be true.)

5. Believing ‘in’ something
— If you believe something is true, it suggests that, on
balance, the statement corresponds to external
reality.
— If you believe in something, it suggests that you are
committed to this concept and that you interpret
your experience in the light of that commitment.
— When someone says that they believe in God, they
mean far more than simply saying that they believe
God exists. But also that they ‘believe’

6. Verification and Falsification
A key feature regarding the meaning and significance
of Religious Language is whether or not religious
claims can be VERIFIED or FALSIFIED.
According to cognitive theories of meaning, a
statement which cannot be verified/ falsified is
not able to convey information and therefore is
not considered meaningful

7. Verification- Wittgenstein and early background
Wittgenstein originally proposed a narrow view of
what could function as language- he saw the function
of language as being ‘to picture the world’. Therefore
statements (in order to be considered meaningful)
needed to correspond to some information about the
world itself.
This idea was developed further by a group of
philosophers known as the Vienna Circle who
produced a theory of meaning known as the
Verification Principle.

8. The Verification Principle (Strong Version)
— The Verification Principle argues that the meaning of
a statement was its method of verification. Simply
put- a statement is meaningful if it can be proved
true or false through empirical evidence. This is
known as STRONG VERIFICATION
— However; it is not always possible to check evidence
for a statement, in which case, it was argued that for
a statement to be meaningful- it would be sufficient
to be able to say what sort of evidence could count
for it. Therefore ….

9. The Verification Principle- Weak Version
— This recognition came to be known as the WEAK
version of the Verification Principle.
— Logical Positivism and the ‘weak’ version of this
principle was advanced by AJ Ayer in his book
Language, Truth and Logic.
— He argued that the statement- ‘God exists’ could not
be considered meaningful because there is no
empirical evidence that could prove the matter (in
either strong or weak forms). On this basis he
rejected most religious and ethical language.

10. The Falsification Principle
Antony Flew argues that for a statement to be
meaningful it must at least be open to falsification –
there must be some way of showing it to be false. A
statement that fits any imaginable state of affairs
doesn’t appear to say anything at all, and is therefore
meaningless. Religious statements tend to suffer from
‘death by a thousand qualifications’: the claims they
embody are so immune to falsification that they are, in
fact, empty.

11. Falsification
— Anthony Flew: Interpreted a story which was originally told
by John Wisdom. It is based on the idea that there are some
people who hold onto their beliefs despite the opposition.
— The parable tells the story of two explorers who look upon one
beautiful clearing. One person believes there is a gardener
who looks after clearing; the other does not. They wait for the
gardener, but no gardener comes. After a series of checks no
evidence for the gardener is found; but one explorer still
believes there is one. Second explorer cannot see the
difference between a gardener who is invisible and intangible,
and no gardener at all.
— For Flew the gardener dies a death of a thousand
qualifications. Every time he fails to be detected, then believer
‘qualifies’ what he means by his gardener, until nothing is left.

12. Karl Popper and Falsification
— The idea of using Falsification in this way relates to
the work of Karl Popper, who argued that a theory
can only be considered scientific if you can specify
what would prove it false. In order for a
statement (or a theory) to be considered
meaningful, people who put forward an
argument must be open to the possibility that
their belief could be proven wrong.

13. Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein (his later work) realized that his previous
realist approach to language was wrong-headed. He
came to recognise that we use language in many
different ways: to promise, to command, to act, to joke,
to curse, to greet and to name. In such cases language
does not generate meaning through reference to
external objects, but through its use in a particular
context. In fact, the meaning of any statement depends
upon the context in which it is used.

14. Wittgenstein continued
If a spectator watching a football match has no
understanding of the rules of football, then all the
actions and commentary will lack meaning and appear
pointless. Once the rules are understood, however,
everything becomes clear. So it is with all language,
Wittgenstein claimed: the words used in any ‘form of
life’ only have meaning within that context. To expect
these words to make sense in a different context is to
send language on holiday. Thus a statement can have
meaning to a particular group without requiring
verification or falsification.

15. Essay Question
‘All talk about God is meaningless’- Critically evaluate
this statement.