Introduction: Why Does Language Matter in Philosophy of Religion?

Welcome to one of the most fascinating parts of the Metaphysics of God! So far, you’ve probably spent a lot of time looking at arguments for whether God exists. But here, we take a step back and ask a more basic question: What do we even mean when we talk about God?

If I say, "The cat is on the mat," you know exactly what I mean because you can see the cat. But if a religious person says, "God is love," what are they actually doing? Are they stating a fact like a scientist? Or are they just expressing a feeling? This chapter looks at whether religious language actually has any meaning at all.

Don't worry if this seems a bit abstract at first! We are going to break it down into two main "camps" and then look at the famous thinkers who fought it out in the "University Debate."

1. The Big Divide: Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism

Before we look at the specific theories, we need to understand the two main ways philosophers view religious sentences.

Cognitivism

Cognitivists believe that religious language makes assertions (claims about the world). If you are a cognitivist, you believe that the sentence "God exists" is either true or false. It’s a bit like saying, "It is raining outside." It’s a statement of fact that describes reality.

Non-Cognitivism

Non-cognitivists argue that religious language is not trying to describe the world or state facts. Instead, it might be expressing an emotion, a way of life, or a personal commitment. If a non-cognitivist says "God is good," they aren't trying to prove a fact; they are more likely saying something like "Hurrah for goodness!" or "I commit to living a life of love."

Analogy: Imagine two people looking at a sunset. Person A says, "The sun is at a 5-degree angle to the horizon" (Cognitive/Fact). Person B says, "That is beautiful!" (Non-cognitive/Feeling). Both are using language, but for very different reasons!

Key Takeaway: Cognitivism = facts/claims about reality. Non-cognitivism = expressions of feelings/attitudes.

2. The Challenge: Logical Positivism and A.J. Ayer

In the 20th century, a group called the Logical Positivists came along and caused a huge stir. They wanted to be as strict as possible about what "meaningful" language looks like.

The Verification Principle

A.J. Ayer argued that a sentence is only meaningful if it meets one of two criteria:
1. Analytic: It is true by definition (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried men").
2. Synthetically Verifiable: We can test it using our five senses (e.g., "There is a dog in the garden").

The Problem for Religion: Ayer argued that "God exists" is neither of these. You can't define God into existence (analytic), and you can't see, touch, or smell God to prove he's there (synthetic). Therefore, Ayer claimed religious language is literally meaningless. It’s not even "false"—it’s just "nonsense," like saying "The squiggly gloop is purple."

Quick Review: Ayer’s Rules

A statement is meaningful ONLY if:
- It is a tautology (true by definition).
- It is verifiable in principle (we know what sensory evidence would prove it).

3. John Hick’s Response: Eschatological Verification

John Hick tried to save religious language from Ayer’s attack. He agreed that for a statement to be meaningful, we must be able to verify it. However, he argued that religious claims are verifiable—just not yet!

The Parable of the Celestial City

Hick tells a story of two travelers walking down a road. One believes the road leads to a "Celestial City," and the other believes the road leads nowhere and is just an aimless ramble. Along the way, they face both hardships and beauty. Neither can prove they are right while they are walking. However, when they reach the end of the road, one will be proven right and the other wrong.

Hick calls this Eschatological Verification. "Eschatological" simply means "to do with the end of time/death." He argues that when we die, we will discover if God exists. Because there is a "test" (dying), the statement "God exists" is meaningful and cognitive.

Key Takeaway: Hick argues religious language is meaningful because it *can* be verified after we die.

4. The Falsification Challenge: Anthony Flew

Anthony Flew moved the goalposts. He didn't care about "verification" (proving things true); he cared about falsification (proving things false).

Flew argued that for a statement to be meaningful, you must be able to say what would count against it. If you say "It is raining," and I point to a clear blue sky, you’d admit you were wrong. But Flew noticed that religious people never admit they are wrong.

The Parable of the Gardener (adapted from Wisdom)

Two explorers find a clearing in the jungle. It has flowers and weeds. Explorer A says, "There must be a gardener." Explorer B says, "I don't see one." They wait, they set up electric fences, they use bloodhounds—nothing.

Explorer A still insists: "There is a gardener, but he is invisible, intangible, and has no scent."

Explorer B asks: "How does your 'invisible, intangible gardener' differ from no gardener at all?"

Flew says religious claims die a "death of a thousand qualifications." By the time a religious person finished explaining why God doesn't stop evil or show himself, the word "God" has lost all its original meaning.

Key Takeaway: If you can't imagine a scenario that would prove you wrong, your statement is meaningless.

5. The University Debate: Hare and Mitchell

Two other philosophers, R.M. Hare and Basil Mitchell, responded to Flew in what became known as the "University Debate."

R.M. Hare and "Bliks"

Hare actually agreed with Flew that religious language isn't scientific. However, he argued it is still meaningful because it represents a "Blik."

A Blik is a fundamental, non-rational way of seeing the world. It isn't based on facts, but it governs everything we do.

The Analogy of the Lunatic: A student is convinced his professors want to murder him. No matter how many kind things the professors do, the student says, "They are just being extra cunning to hide their plot."

The student has a "wrong" Blik, and we have a "right" Blik, but we all have Bliks. Religious language is meaningful because it expresses the "Blik" by which a person lives their life. This is a non-cognitivist view.

Basil Mitchell and The Partisan

Mitchell disagreed with Hare. He wanted to show that religious language is cognitive (about facts) but that religious people aren't just ignoring evidence like Flew suggested.

The Analogy of the Stranger: During a war in a resistance movement, a Partisan (a soldier) meets a mysterious Stranger. The Stranger tells the Partisan that he is actually the head of the resistance. Sometimes the Stranger helps the resistance; sometimes he is seen helping the enemy.

The Partisan’s friends say, "The Stranger is a traitor!" but the Partisan says, "I trust him."

Mitchell’s point is that the Partisan does see the evidence against the Stranger, but he chooses to trust him anyway because of their initial meeting. Similarly, religious people see the "evidence" of evil in the world, but they hold onto their significant articles of faith because of their personal relationship with God.

Key Takeaway:
- Hare: Language is a Blik (Non-cognitive lens).
- Mitchell: Language is a Significant Article of Faith (Cognitive but based on trust/trial).

Summary Quick Review

1. A.J. Ayer: Religious language is nonsense because you can't verify it with senses.
2. John Hick: It's meaningful because we can verify it when we die (Celestial City).
3. Anthony Flew: It's meaningless because religious people won't let anything falsify it (Gardener).
4. R.M. Hare: It's meaningful as a "Blik"—a way of seeing the world (Lunatic).
5. Basil Mitchell: It's meaningful as a statement of trust in the face of contrary evidence (The Stranger).

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't confuse Flew and Ayer! Ayer wants proof for (verification); Flew wants to know what would count against (falsification).