Philosophy · Year 12 · Metaphysics of God · Summer Term

The Nature of Religious Language

Consider whether language can meaningfully describe God, exploring the challenges posed by verificationism and falsificationism, and analysing non-cognitive interpretations.

TL;DR:This topic challenges students to grapple with a foundational philosophical puzzle: can we even talk meaningfully about God? We will explore the powerful arguments from 20th-century philosophy that threatened to render all religious, and even ethical, language nonsensical.

• National Curriculum Attainment Targets
• AQA A-Level Philosophy: Section 4.1 - Metaphysics of God - Religious Language

About This Topic

This topic delves into one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of religion: can human language, developed to describe the finite, empirical world, ever be used meaningfully to describe a transcendent, non-empirical God? This area of study is central to A-Level Philosophy specifications in the UK, directly engaging students with twentieth-century analytical philosophy and its profound impact on theology. The unit begins with the robust challenge from logical positivism, particularly A.J. Ayer's verification principle, which sought to eliminate metaphysics by declaring non-empirical statements as literally meaningless. Students will explore the distinction between strong and weak verification and consider the radical implications for religious, ethical, and aesthetic language.

Following this, the focus shifts to the falsification principle, a development from Karl Popper's philosophy of science, famously applied to religious language by Antony Flew. Through his influential parable of the invisible gardener, Flew argued that religious assertions are often rendered meaningless because believers allow nothing to count against them, letting them 'die a death of a thousand qualifications'. The curriculum then examines the key responses to Flew's challenge, presented in the same symposium. These include R.M. Hare's concept of 'bliks' (unfalsifiable worldviews that are nonetheless meaningful) and Basil Mitchell's parable of the partisan, which argues for a commitment of faith that is not blind to contrary evidence. The topic broadens to consider non-cognitive interpretations of religious language, most notably Ludwig Wittgenstein's theory of 'language games', which posits that meaning is context-dependent. Alternative cognitive approaches, such as Aquinas' doctrine of analogy and Paul Tillich's view of language as symbolic, are also crucial for providing a comprehensive understanding of how believers have philosophically justified their claims.

Key Questions

1. Explain the verification principle and its implications for religious statements.
2. Analyse Flew's falsification principle using the parable of the gardener.
3. Compare cognitive and non-cognitive approaches to understanding religious language.

Learning Objectives

• Explain the challenges to the meaning of religious language posed by logical positivism and the falsification principle.
• Analyse the arguments of key thinkers including Ayer, Flew, Hare, Mitchell, and Wittgenstein.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of non-cognitive interpretations of religious language.
• Compare and contrast cognitive approaches to religious language, such as Aquinas' theory of analogy and Tillich's theory of symbols.
• Apply these philosophical concepts to assess the meaningfulness of specific religious claims.

Key Vocabulary

Cognitive	Relating to language that makes factual claims about the world which can be determined to be true or false.
Non-cognitive	Relating to language that is not intended to be factual, but instead expresses emotions, attitudes, or a particular way of life.
Verification Principle	The criterion of meaning, associated with A.J. Ayer, that a statement is only cognitively meaningful if it is either a tautology (analytic) or can be confirmed in principle by sense experience (synthetic).
Falsification Principle	The criterion of meaning, applied to religion by Antony Flew, that for a statement to be a genuine scientific or factual assertion, there must be some conceivable evidence that could prove it false.
Blik	A term coined by R.M. Hare to describe a basic, unfalsifiable belief or attitude that shapes a person's entire worldview and interpretation of evidence.
Language Games	Wittgenstein's concept that the meaning of a word is not fixed but is determined by its use within a specific context, activity, or 'form of life', which operates according to a set of internal rules.
Analogy	In this context, Aquinas' theory that we can speak meaningfully about God by using terms that are neither univocal (meaning exactly the same) nor equivocal (meaning completely different), but analogous.

Watch Out for These Misconceptions

Common Misconception

Ayer claimed that 'God does not exist' is a true statement.

What to Teach Instead

Ayer's position was more radical. He argued that statements like 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' are not false, but meaningless. For Ayer, they are pseudo-propositions that cannot be verified and are therefore nonsensical, like saying 'The number seven is green'.

Common Misconception

Non-cognitive language is just another word for gibberish or nonsense.

What to Teach Instead

Non-cognitive does not mean without meaning; it means without factual, propositional meaning. Such language does not make claims that can be true or false. Instead, it serves other functions, such as expressing emotions, prescribing a way of life (Hare's 'bliks'), or fostering a sense of community.

Common Misconception

Falsification is just the opposite of verification.

What to Teach Instead

While related, they are distinct criteria of meaning. Verificationism asks 'What evidence would prove this true?', while falsificationism asks 'What evidence would prove this false?'. Flew argued that for a statement to be a genuine assertion, the speaker must be able to state what would have to happen for them to admit they were wrong.

Active Learning Ideas

Socratic Seminar

Verification Principle Sorting Challenge

In small groups, students are given a set of cards with various statements (analytic, synthetic, religious, moral, aesthetic). They must sort them into 'meaningful' and 'meaningless' piles according to both the strong and weak versions of the verification principle, justifying their choices.

25 min·Small Groups

Socratic Seminar

Modern Parables

Students rewrite one of the key parables (Flew's Gardener, Hare's Dons, Mitchell's Partisan) in a contemporary setting, for example, involving a social media influencer, a scientific theory, or a political conspiracy. This helps them to internalise the core philosophical argument of each parable.

30 min·Pairs

Socratic Seminar

Language Games 'In the Wild'

Students are tasked with identifying two different 'language games' from their own experience (e.g., the language of a science lab versus the language of a poem). They must explain how the meaning of a key term changes between the two contexts, then apply this insight to the debate about religious language.

20 min·Individual

Real-World Connections

• Analysing political discourse: Are politicians' statements verifiable claims, or are they non-cognitive expressions designed to foster group identity and emotional response?
• Understanding scientific method: The principle of falsifiability remains a cornerstone of how we distinguish scientific theories from pseudo-science.
• Interpreting literature and art: Recognising how authors and artists use symbolic and non-cognitive language to convey truths that are not literally or factually descriptive.
• Debates about 'fake news': Applying the principles of verification and evidence helps in critically evaluating the truth-claims we encounter in the media.
• Cross-cultural communication: Appreciating that different communities have their own 'language games' can prevent misunderstandings by showing that the meaning of words is dependent on context and shared practices.

Assessment Ideas

Exit Ticket

Exit ticket: Students must write a 'tweet' (under 280 characters) summarising the core argument of either Ayer or Flew.

Peer Assessment

A timed essay responding to a question such as, 'Critically assess the view that Wittgenstein's theory of language games successfully defends religious language from the verificationist challenge.'

Quick Check

Students use a 'traffic light' system to rate their confidence in explaining each key theory (verification, falsification, bliks, language games, analogy), identifying areas for revision.

Frequently Asked Questions

If religious language is a 'language game', does that mean believers can just make up any rules they want?

Not quite. According to Wittgenstein, a language game is rooted in a 'form of life'. This means the rules are not arbitrary but are established and coherent within the practices and community of that form of life. While this gives religious language internal meaning, it doesn't make it immune from external critique or questions about its relationship to reality.

Why did the verification principle fail?

The principle faced several major problems. The most significant was that the principle itself ('A statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable') is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable, making it meaningless by its own criteria. This self-refuting nature led to its eventual abandonment by most philosophers.

What is the difference between a symbol and a sign for Tillich?

For theologian Paul Tillich, a sign arbitrarily points to something else (e.g., a red light means 'stop'). A symbol, however, participates in the reality of what it points to. For Tillich, religious language is symbolic; the word 'God' is not just a label but participates in and evokes the reality of 'ultimate concern' or the 'ground of being'.