Logical positivism

Logical Positivism was coined by Comte to explain how science and empiricism can be used to detect whether something has meaning.

Synthetic statements: True because of the way the world is and what they mean.

Analytic statements: True in virtue of meaning alone, truth in itself.

Ayer argues that metaphysics can be dismissed using logic instead of empirical evidence. He claims that both metaphysicians and religious philosophers cannot prove their statements have meaning.

The verification principle: If a claim cannot be verified by sense experience then it cannot be representative of reality.

A.J Ayer: "A sentence is factually significant [meaningful] if, and only if, we know how to verify the proposition it purports to express – that is, if we know what observations would lead us to accept the proposition as true or reject it as false."

Ayer argues that religious language fails to count as meaningful, therefore we cannot debate whether it is true or false.

Distinguishing between strong and weak verification

A.J. Ayer distinguished between strong verification and weak verification. Strong verification can be conclusively proven by observation & experience whilst weak verification can be shown to be true beyond any reasonable doubt by direct observation. Weak verification can tell us what is possible.

This widens the debate of what is meaningful to historical claims and scientific laws and softens the demand for absolute verification.

Challenging the verification principle

• The Verification principle is too rigid.
• Agreement in verification doesn't make them meaningless.
• Ayer is not right to rule out all religious statements.
• Meaning is subjective and is arguably not a question for science.
• Verification principle is self-negating as the verification principle itself can't be verified. However, Ayer would argue that the verification principle is for statements, however, the verification principle is a theory and therefore doesn't need to pass the test.

Eschatologically verifiable

Hick argues that the afterlife serves as verification for religious language and God. When we die, we'll be able to verify God's existence through seeing him in the afterlife. Hick uses the Parable of the Travellers to demonstrate his argument where two travelers argue as to where the road leads, one argues it leads to a celestial city and the other does not. When the travelers go down the end of each road, it will be proven that one was right and one was wrong.

Ayers' response to criticism

Ayer acknowledged that weak verification allows for more flexibility and could therefore help support religious statements, in response he developed direct verification, a statement that is verifiable by observation and indirect verification which is where we know how to verify a statement. This prevents God's existence from being verified as it cannot be proved directly or indirectly.