“God” is Meaningless
Most arguments for atheism argue
either that theism involves some kind of logical contradiction, or that it is
unsupported (or perhaps even refuted) by the evidence. There is, however, a more
fundamental criticism of theism that holds that all talk of God is literally
meaningless.
Logical Positivism
This position is related to a particular school of thought: logical positivism.
Logical positivism was an important movement in the 1920s and 30s. Among its
claims was the principle of verification.
The Principle of Verification
The principle of verification holds
that the meaning of a statement is constituted by its verification conditions.
Whatever empirical observations would count as confirmation of a statement, that
is what the statement means.
A corollary of the principle of verification is that if a statement has no
verification conditions, if there are no empirical observations that would
establish it as true, then it has no meaning, it is nonsensical.
Talk of God is Meaningless
If this is correct, if the meaning
of a statement is constituted by its verification conditions, then what of the
assertions of theism? One response to this question is that the assertions of
theism have no verification conditions, and so are, on this account,
meaningless.
Antony Flew gives several examples
of theological statements that he takes to be unfalsifiable, and so to have no
verification conditions, for example the claim that God has a plan. There can be
no evidence against this claim. No matter how disordered the world appears to
be, theists take solace in the thought that God has a plan. It is often accepted
that this is contrary to appearances, that it looks as though the world is out
of control, but the claim remains: God has a plan. We may not be able to see why
things are happening as they are, or how they can be used for the good, but that
is because our view of the world is limited. God’s view is not limited, and he
has a plan.
|
|
Flew’s other examples of claims that theists make that
cannot be falsified are “God created the world” and “God
loves us as a father loves his children”. Even the simple
assertion, fundamental to theism, “God exists”, falls into
this category according to Flew. Theism itself is
unfalsifiable. Any possible event, Flew suggested, can be
accommodated by theism. Horrendous moral evil is consistent
with God’s existence, according to the theist. Divine
hiddenness is consistent with God’s existence, according to
the theist. Anything at all, it seems. There is no possible
refutation of theism.
If, though, there is no possible refutation of theism, then
how is a confirmation of theism possible? If every state of
affairs is consistent with theism, then theism cannot make
any predictions, the truth of theism does not narrow down
the way that the world might be. If theism does not make
any predictions, though, then its predictions cannot be
tested; there is no way of verifying theism.
Atheism and Agnosticism are Meaningless Too
The argument that “God” is
meaningless isn’t only an argument against theism; it also
applies to agnosticism and atheism (strong atheism at
least). True, theism is in trouble if this central term in
its vocabulary is undefined, but the same can be said of
strong atheism and agnosticism. For the concept of God is
no less central to atheism, which affirms that God does not
exist, and agnosticism, which affirms that whether God
exists is unknowable, than it is to theism, which affirms
that God does exist. The argument that “God” is meaningless
must be rejected, then, not only by theists but also by
strong atheists and agnostics. If successful, it supports
only weak atheism, the absence of belief in God.
This was recognised by a leading proponent of this
argument, A J Ayer. Ayer wrote,
“It is important not to confuse this view of religious
assertions with the view that is adopted by atheists, or
agnostics. For it is characteristic of an agnostic to hold
that the existence of a god is a possibility in which there
is no good reason either to believe or disbelieve; and it
is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least
probable that no god exists. And our view that all
utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical, so far
from being identical with, or even lending any support to,
either of these familiar contentions is actually
incompatible with them.” [A J Ayer, Language, Truth and
Logic, Penguin Books (2001), pp120-121]
Responses
The main problem with the principle
of verification is that it is self-refuting. If the
principle is true, then it is itself meaningless. For what
are the verification conditions of verificationism? How can
it be tried, tested? It cannot. This is the main reason why
verificationism is no longer defended today.
Rejecting the principle of verification, though, does not
wholly resolve the problem. Though this would sever the
connection between unverifiability and meaninglessness, it
would leave the claim that theism is unverifiable
untouched. A preferable solution would therefore be to
provide an answer to the question: “What would count as a
sufficient reason to disbelieve in God?” If this question
can be answered then theism does at least make some
predictions about the way that the world will be, and so
can be confirmed or refuted.
|
