Logical Positivism - But is it really?

The introduction of the book Language, Truth and Logic by one of the Vienna Circle's leading thinkers (A J Ayer) set out the main principles of what is known as logical positivism. The Logical Positivists used the verification principle as a means to judge whether a statement has any real meaning to it. They argued that statements such as 'God exists' and 'God is love' are neither true nor false but rather that they are meaningless. With this attitude, they took the view that there is not even any point in raising questions that are to do with such things because as they see it, there is nothing to talk about. This reminded me of the similar view that Bertrand Russell took against the cosmological argument. For, he thought that the concept of a necessary being in fact has no meaning and therefore means there was no point in looking into the subject of the cosmological argument. Due to this, as he saw it, the only things that are necessary are parts of logic, such as B following A in the alphabet or two and two adding up to four. 

However, moving back to the verification principle, when conducting philosophical discussion there seems to be two different ways in which a word or phrase can have meaning. The first being denotation, which is when the words stands for something, such as the word window meaning the part of a wall which has glass in it. And the second is connotation, which is when words carry further meaning in them. Such as the word window, which possibly can mean a gap for opportunity. So, to alter this traditional view of meaning, the Logical Positivists claimed that evidence is only useful if it is available to be tested by the senses that humans posses. And because of this, Ayer thought that the concept of God is meaningless in the first instance, for as he says "The notion of a being whose essential attributes are non empirical is not an intelligible notion at all."

The main line of argument that the Logical Positivists took was that meaning must be verifiable in some way. In fact, going back to the famous table that we learnt at the beginning of year 12, they analyse statements by using analytic and synthetic methods. When looking at analytic statements, we do not have to check whether they are true or false through our past experience, or through our senses, as they just give us information about certain words, much like dictionaries. And the way in which these particular statements turn out to be true or false depends on what is actually being suggested by that statement. For example, something like '50p is a measurement of money' is a true analytic statement, whereas something like 'pigs are flying insects', is not. In addition to this tautologies are counted as these kinds of statements, as they are by definition true within themselves, like the statement 'ice is icy'.

When coming to the synthetic statements, they seem to be a little more complex. They give us information about reality, such as saying 'that bed is comfortable'. Logical Positivists decided that for a synthetic statement to be meaningful, they have to be verifiable from using empirical evidence. So, in order for the statement about the bed to be true, they must be able to test it by lying in the bed, and deciding through the sense of touch, whether it really is comfy or not. This also applies to all other statements, as they must be able to be tested through all the other senses. And once they have deduced whether the statement is in fact verifiable, it then either gives the statement meaning or does not. The verification principle therefore suggests that we will know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions behind the statement. And if we don't know them then it would seem that the statement is meaningless. Which is why Ayer comes to the conclusion that talking about God is meaningless, because we cannot prove that statements about God are either true or false. 

What is Religious Language? And how can we truly understand it?

When starting this topic we looked at code breaking... and I can safely say I think it was the most fun I've ever had in a lesson for quite some time! And when getting onto more topic specific things such as scholars, I found Ferdinand de Saussure's idea of semiotics very interesting as well. The three main things to grasp in semiotics are the Sign, the Signifier and the Signified. The first, is a label that we give something which enables us to communicate about it. The second is the form that the Sign takes. So by using an apple as an example, 'apple' would be the sign, and depending on the kind of apple of course, one might say that as well as the attributes the object has, such as green/red skin, stalk and general roundish shape, the Signifier of it is the way in which we pronounce that particular thing, e.g. A-P-P-L-E. And finally the concept that one is left with, which is the Signified, is the final result of both Sign and Signifier that come together in a coherent idea that allows people to talk about and understand what the apple is.

However, as Kant pointed out, some things in this world that can be talked about such as time, and cause and effect don't need Semiotics to explain them. He called these things Conceptual Schemes. For, within these things, the innate ideas of them are compatible with everyone's understanding, despite the fact that time is something we've implemented to help us understand the world. When really time is subjective to different people, and doesn't necessarily work in the way we've made it. So, concept schemes are produced by the imagination in relation to time, as humans tend to have a need to produce an anthropocentric view of the world.

Now, the real reason that religious language is necessary is so we can participate in 'God-talk', which is the ability to be able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent manner. The two sides that represent a kind of 'For' and 'Against' when trying to decide whether 'God-talk' is meaningful or not, are the Centuries old traditional religious believers who believe that you can speak and write about God, because God is a part of reality. And on the other hand, are the Logical Positivists and those that they influence who claim that statements about God have no meaning, because they don't relate to anything in reality. A possible explanation of this might be the epistemic distance that is sometimes described to exist between God and humans, because due to this we would potentially never be able to understand God as a part of our world and would therefore make it impossible to make any statements about God that have any real meaning. However, although the Logical Positivists are using empirical reasoning and Cognitive Language, which are factual statements that are proved either true or false, religious statements may still have value and meaning. This is because, although Non-Cognitive Language such as religious statements cannot be verified, they cannot be falsified either, which suggests to me that perhaps they should be treated as though they have meaning until proved incorrect. In addition to this, because Non-Cognitive Language includes things such as symbols, it can still be very meaningful to a religious believer. Furthermore, it is then free from scrutiny from people who criticise religious language, as it seems as though art and symbols can evoke a different kind of emotion and connection to God than what can be explained by just religious language alone.