THEOLOGY AS THE CASUALTY OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM
Logical positivism said that if you cannot verify an assertion or know how to then you don't really have a meaning for it. It is just words. It is meaningless though it may read like good sense. This led to the verification principle which called all statements that were not checked empirically not true not false but meaningless nonsense.
The principle then assumes that only evidence and proof give reality to a statement. The words making sense does not mean the meaning makes sense.
Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne says that a statement can be
meaningful without being verifiable. He gives an example. He says it is
meaningful to say that the toys come out at night to play even though you cannot
prove or disprove this and though it is clearly nonsensical.
That is not a refutation of the principle. You may feel the statement is
meaningful but the principle says that a statement is not factually significant
though it can be emotionally significant. It can feel like it has meaning but it
might have none. Also, you can prove the toys don't come out for they are not
alive. The statement has meaning because of the principle.
Saying the toys come out to play may be meaningless but it is emotionally
meaningful and to say language is meaningless is not to say that is is useless.
The language is useful - as a story or thought - but that has nothing to do with
whether is is meaningful or not.
Logical positivists are familiar with statements that people assume are
meaningful but which are not. Giving examples of such statements does not help
refute the positivists. If one says statements a to z are meaningless and one
picks out statement h and says, "Look that is meaningful" that is failing to
make a point. It is failing to deal with the objection. Statement h is one of
the statements which meaningfulness is being questioned so making an example of
it does not help at all.
Also, Swinburne is speaking of a miracle in the toys coming alive and being able
to play. We know the Verification Principle is right in spirit even if we can't
get the details of what it does right we certainly know that an extreme belief
such as the belief that the flow of nature can be interrupted by a miracle is
definitely one thing it can refute the meaningfulness of.
If miracles are logically or otherwise impossible then you can prove that the
toys stay in the cupboard. Believing in miracles or believing in a God who uses
nature such as winds to make the toys come out to play decreases our confidence
in evidence. A person who denies such things happen can have more confidence in
the unknown than can a person who does. For example, he can be more sure the
knife won't come out of the drawer by itself and kill his child. Even if we are
wrong it is better to have confidence in natural law.
If you need to know how to prove or disprove a proposition to make it
meaningful, what if the evidence for its truth/falsity is only slightly better
than the evidence for its falsity/truth? It shows that the statement is in fact
not necessarily either meaningful or meaningless but is a shade of grey.
Statements can be partly meaningless but mostly meaningful. They can be partly
meaningful but mostly meaningless. Perhaps they are not meaningful or
meaningless at all.
If miracles happened all the time our language would be meaningless. An apple
would be really a pear and water would be turning into wine and all-sorts all
the time. Communication would be wrong and nonsense all the time. Any miracle is
an outbreak of chaos and an evidence against the trustworthiness of natural law.
To use examples like Swinburne's is to reduce the meaningfulness of language.
The more miracles that are accepted as possible or as facts the more the
meaningfulness of your statements is compromised.
What if Swinburne had used the example: "This statement is meaningful though it
cannot be verified or falsified. That stranger at the nearest beach who is
getting into the car now and who I never met and will never meet, drank some sea
water"? You are still claiming a miracle that is meaningless took place, namely
that you know this without being able to verify it. You are still denying the
validity of evidence and therefore talking gibberish though you seem to be using
coherent words to do it.