“Critically Examine Why Religious Language Is Meaningless” (35 Marks).

“Critically examine why religious language is meaningless” (35 Marks).

The notion of whether religion is meaningless has been regarded as one of the most debated topics ever, it is a regular hot seat debate between wider communities and philosophers who try to seek answers on whether language used in relation to god is truth or in fact a myth which has been used extensively in modern day society. However many philosophers have argued that religious statements, some being “god exists” and “god is love” are neither true or false but merely statements that have evolved over time due to societies fascination with religion and have become meaningless due to the lack of meaning and not having enough evidence. In this essay I will be taking a logical positivists approach and asses whether religious language allows us to communicate and spiritually believe in god.

A major criticism came from the logical positivists, they were remotely concerned with the use of language and how that is conveyed. They reject all religious language as it is non cognitive, which means statements are not factual and in their eyes are considered as myths. Gathered in Vienna in the 1920’s they were influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein who raised and debated on several occasions over what the meaning of language was and created many strong debates throughout the globe. The Vienna circle led at the time of conception by Mortise Schlick believed that religious language was completely false, they adapted and elaborated on Auguste Comte’s view by saying that theological and religious interpretations deserved to be in the past (unenlightened age) as people would merely blame religion when no concrete evidence was available or since was not yet accessible during the event which took place. Comte completely disagreed with religious language and argued that with society expanding and having more readily available techniques to discover certain aspects of how the world works, (such as science) it takes...