Discussion on the Verification Principle
My first blog post - hopefully it reads well!
Moritz Schlick,
Rudolf Carnap and other members of the Vienna Circle revolutionised the
philosophy of the 20th century. Their radical new approach to
religious language, questioning whether it really means anything, made
philosophers take a step back. Suddenly questions about our world had to be
replaced with ones debating whether there is any knowledge in what I am saying.
Am I doomed to spend decades discussing and obsessing over questions we can
never answer, never even get close to making a meaningful statements about? Initiating
such a debate is immensely significant and until then was never considered as
an angle that can be taken in philosophical works, ergo despite most
philosophers ultimately rejecting their ideas its presence in the 20th
century work should not be underestimated.
The Verification Principle states that only tautologies,
statements that are necessarily true by the language contained within them, and
empirically verifiable statements can contain meaningful language and cognitive
knowledge. This proposal posed huge implications for most of philosophy;
aesthetics, arguments to prove the existence of God, and ultimately any
discussion involving God is meaningless language, if you accept their premise (note
this is not an exhaustive list, just those that shall be focused on in this
discussion). If we cannot use our sense experience to verify statements such as
‘God is just’ or ‘God loves humanity and gave his only son for our sins’ then
we cannot speak meaningfully of God at all – the repercussions of this need not
be elaborated on. Religion, whether you believe in it or not, is integral to
our morals, society, and is still the subject of highest debate in every corner
of the globe – regarding ‘god-talk’ as meaningless would resonate in nearly
every area of academia, and of life. Due to this hugely controversial and
revolutionary way of approaching religious language most philosophers refuted
their views, and even A. J. Ayer, who was greatly influenced by their views and
went on to develop a more concrete definition, direct and indirect verification,
refuted his own ideas as “far too liberal, as it allows meaning to any
statement whatsoever” Language, Truth and
Logic Edition II. I have been slightly misleading when using this quote,
and it should be pointed out Ayer was not refuting all concept of verification,
merely realising his initial definitions of what are commonly known as ‘strong’
and ‘weak’ verification were too vague, and had numerous flaws. Strong
verification was so strong in its definition it left very little meaningful
language; science and history both fall short of its rules. Equally weak
verification had its own issues; the amount of evidence needed to provide weak
verification was so vague it could allow anything. Ayer rejected the use of
religious experiences as evidence for weak verification on account of them
being nothing more than recounting a set of emotions regarding religion,
whereas many philosophers would argue they provide more than enough evidence to
pass the weak verification principle. These, among other problems with
verification posed by the likes of Richard Swinburne and John Hick caused their
proposal to be put aside as ‘going a bit too far’. But I would argue it should
be considered much more carefully, and its ideas aren’t as radical as they
sound.
The proposal of deducing what we can know, and what we can
make meaningful statements about is an essential one in this field of study.
Philosophy as a subject is always in danger of ‘getting too deep’ – there are
questions we cannot answer, at least in current times and others that will take
centuries to propound concrete theories on. Ultimately philosophers can rarely
prove anything, as hard as they try. Anselm thought he had proven Gods
existence using a priori logic, but
soon enough Gaunilo pointed out you could ‘prove’ anything into existence using
such logic. So Anselm added another predicate to his theory; yet there are
still numerous problems with it. The same can be said for Paley and his design
argument, Aquinas and the cosmological argument, Copleston and his refined
cosmological argument – the list goes on. New arguments to prove the existence
of the deity that is the centre of so many millions of people’s lives spring up
all the time. Some are more successful than others, yes, but are any of them
containing meaningful language, or any knowledge at all? Despite being a
Christian myself, I would argue no, they do not contain any concrete knowledge.
Meaningful language about God can be conveyed, and in huge quantities, but to
say we know things about God through the use of these arguments is one step too
far - for me at least.
When people read the Bible they interpret it in many ways;
some take a fundamentalist stance, some a more liberal interpretation, and many
can only see the numerous ‘flaws’ within it (undoubtedly there are a great
number of contradictions in the Bible on teachings about morals, life events,
and many Christians would also see these ‘flaws’). A logical positivist, a follower of the Vienna
Circle, would use their tool of verifying language to say that all of the
stories, morals and historical documentation in the Bible is simply words;
there is no meaning or cognitive knowledge there. I would agree there is no
cognitive knowledge. Many fundamentalist Christians may see this as ridiculous;
the Bible is the divine word of God, written by human hand but inspired and
made by God. However, along with the majority view, I would say that the Bible
was indeed inspired by God, and the things he had done and revealed, but it was
human made. It contains mistakes, and it should not all be taken literally
(although I do then I fall into the difficult question which parts are literal
and which are not – sadly it is not a perfect view by far). For this reason I
would agree no knowledge can be gained from the Bible. You can interpret, learn
and draw your own world views, beliefs and morals, but knowledge seems too far.
Personally I find faith an essential part of religion - the agreement you have
with yourself that says you could be wrong. I know that I could full well have
shaped my life around the morals and teachings of a God who is not real, of a
made up deity who never has, and never will, exist. This is perhaps one of the
most important parts of being religious. Dedicating your life to someone you
know exists, and following him would not impact on you and your life nearly as
much. You can learn so much from religion, good and bad, yet if the whole world
was certain of a God, and we could see and observe him using sense experience,
he would not be so great. Much like a King or a Queen such a revealed God would
not mean as much to his people and would not impact on their lives in such a
profound way. He could become arbitrary, a part of our life we all have, all
see, but don’t really think about (for the majority anyway). We would follow
him without thinking, and perhaps many would follow him simply to gain passage
to heaven. Such a revealed and obvious deity would detract himself from what he
is, and the worship he deserves. For this reason no cognitive knowledge can be
gained from reading the Bible. A crucial and central part of religion is the
belief that you could be wrong, and that the teachings and being you follow are
nothing more than a fairytale. Hence there is no cognitive knowledge in the
Bible, or arguments to prove Gods existence. But perhaps there is meaningful
language.
Again the logical positivists would refute my (tentative)
claim. Religious language, ‘god-talk’, cannot contain meaningful language. We
cannot observe God, we cannot use our senses to reveal him, and we cannot speak
in tautologies about him, ergo we cannot speak meaningfully of him. But this
for me is the wrong definition of meaningful. From interpreting their views it
seems to me what they consider to be meaningful language is that which can be
proved, that which we know to be true. We cannot call poetry, art and religious
language meaningful as its meaning cannot be proved, it is subjective in its
nature and as such meaning cannot be conveyed. How can something be meaningful
if 10, 20, or more people all read/observe the same thing and draw their own
distinct conclusions? Schlick would argue it can’t be meaningful. Yet consider
the immensely famous image of the domineering, ghostly gate that adorns the
front of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. This image is for some a
definition of the horrors of the Holocaust; for others it brings sadness;
others confusion as to how a human can do such a thing; and sadly, for the
smallest minority, a sense of pride in what was nearly achieved. This range of
interpretations is what makes it meaningless for Schlick, but surely this gives
it its meaning? This image has immense power; it provoked hundreds of
psychologists to investigate how a human being can believe such a crime to be
moral; it still provokes billions of people worldwide to strive for a world
where this never happens, and it develops extreme emotional reactions within
people. This is what gives it its meaning. Meaning should not be defined as
something that can be proved, but what an image/statement provokes within a
person, or society. Meaning within a statement comes from the reaction it induces.
People read famous quotes, classic pieces of literature and develop feelings,
beliefs, and pursue actions after reading them (even if this is only going on
to read another book). This surely makes the statement meaningful. It has
provoked a reaction, changed what someone is going to do. Even if the words
within the book cannot be empirically proved, they may have changed someone’s
beliefs, and therefore their life. The reaction a statement provokes, not the
‘provability’ of the statement is what makes it meaningful.
It is for this reason that the Bible and religious language
as a whole is meaningful for me. People shape their entire lives around the
Bible. They develop beliefs, preach to others, change their relationships with
people and society so that they can follow the God they believe in. It is these
reactions by people after reading the Bible, or after propounding an argument
for the existence of God, that give the religious language their meaning. The
statement ‘God is just’ is not meaningless because it cannot be proved. It is
meaningful, as it has induced a belief in a God who rewards the worthy and
punishes the wrong in billions of people; it has shaped the way they live their
lives, and changed the way they view this world. Therefore for me it is
undeniable that religious language contains meaning. Whilst the effect of what
the Logical Positivists say is undeniable, and their claim that unverifiable
things contain no cognitive knowledge is for me true, perhaps their claim that
religious language is meaningless is a little less concrete.
No comments:
Post a Comment