A New Verification Principle: a paradox that is unverified is nonsense
Logical Positivism says that the Verification Principle, that a statement is
meaningless unless it can be shown to be definitely/probably shown to be true or
false, refutes religion. It is based on the fact that meaning is about what
experience and evidence teaches you. So a statement can seem to make sense and
still be nonsense or meaningless.
Few today agree with the Verification Principle. But all agree that it is not
totally wrong.
That might suggest that Logical Positivism or its Verification Principle (same
thing!) needs modification.
I suggest this formulation of the Verification Principle.
A paradox is when something and its opposite seem to be both true and untrue at
the same time. A paradox gets meaning when it is proven to be correct. A paradox
that cannot be proven to be true is simply a contradiction and thus meaningless.
A paradox is meaningless unless you can verify it.
But what if a paradox is true and you cannot know if it is or there is no way to
tell? Then treat it as a contradiction. You have to for you don't want to risk
mistaking paradoxes for contradictions. Contradictions have to be avoided for a
reason, the biggest reason of all. That is to help us get at the truth or near
enough to it.
A paradox out of thin air is a threat to reason - even if it is right but you
don't know it is - because you don't want people and liars teaching you
contradictions and calling them paradoxes. It is different if you can verify A
and non-A equally. A paradox that is proven is not a threat to reason because
you are saying the contradiction only seems to be there and can somehow be
solved even if there are no clues how. You are still reposing soundly on
evidence.
A paradox is not the same as a contradiction. It means it seems to be a
contradiction and you may have no solution now but it cannot be a contradiction
though it looks like one. A paradox makes sense in some way beyond the abilities
of our minds. A contradiction is just nonsense.
The difference between paradox and contradiction tells us that if the VP is
useless, it is useful when it comes to trying to avoid seeing a paradox where
there is actually a contradiction. Then you have to modify the VP. Instead of
saying something has meaning if you know how to verify or falsify it you say
something has meaning when it appears to be a paradox only when you can verify
it. You have to verify that something is the case and not the case at the same
time before you can make sense in calling something a paradox.
This way of applying the principle means that unless something that appears
contradictory can be verified it is meaningless. It is meaningless because a
contradiction is meaningless.
Religion is full of contradictory doctrines that it calls paradoxes or
mysteries. The modified VP shows they are meaningless.
The standard VP attacks made up paradoxes too and says they are meaningless
simply because they cannot be proven true or false but it does not say they are
meaningless because they might be contradictions or at risk of being ones. But
there is no reason why it shouldn't. Then it would be attacking religious
statements in two ways, the VP way and the modified VP way!
Objection
Consider this, "A contradiction is just nonsense. If a statement is a paradox,
then the statement has meaning if it can be verified as true or false. But what
if you are going to say that it is both? Indeed that is what you are saying. The
modified one as proposed here says anything that is both true and false is
nonsense. Thus the modified VP makes all paradoxes even scientific ones to be
meaningless."
If the objection were correct then in the light that not all meaningless
statements are equally meaningless, the VP makes paradoxes that are not based on
scientific evidence to be the worst form of meaningless rubbish.
The answer to the objection is that a paradox is not evidence that a
contradiction can be true. The paradox is down to something being true one way
and false in another. It is not saying that a and not-a are both true.
God and the VP
Logical Positivism said that because we have no experience of any world beyond
the physical that we can sense all statements about God and spirits and heavens
are meaningless. To say God exists is meaningless for you can never see God or
touch him.
If it has any value at all it certainly questions the value of religious
statements. It questions their meaningfulness.
Christians are not shy about saying that the doctrine of God is full of
paradoxes. God is that by definition that alone matters for it is the reason
anything exists so how could anything else have any real importance apart from
it? So when their basis and framework is meaningless even the meaningful stuff
they do and say is meaningless. 1 + 1 = 2 is only meaningful if you say it and
view maths as correct. If you think maths is nonsense and is just a custom then
your calculation looks meaningful but is not. It is the same principle.
The Verification Principle as it emerged at the start was felt to eliminate too
much.
Even if there are problems working out what the principle eliminates and to what
to apply it to, one thing for sure is that it eliminates God which is an
unnecessary belief. God is described as a being without parts. He has no
components. He is like a gas that is everywhere but which is not composed of
parts. His love is his justice though love and justice are not the same thing.
His intelligence is his justice though intelligence and justice are not the same
thing. For Catholics, he is an undivided being and yet has three divisions in
him, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God did not use his power or anything to make
the universe. The universe was not made from anything but just popped into
existence at God's command. This is magic not making or creating. We cannot
understand any of this so it is unintelligible nonsense. We know there is
something in the Verification Principle. Nobody denies that there is something
there. They worry that it goes too far but its eliminating God as meaningful is
not going too far especially when you look at the silly baggage that comes with
belief in God. There is something there in the principle. And that something
must deal with God and expose the concept as meaningless. The concept is
extremely meaningless and foolish and to talk about verifying God is like saying
you want to verify that 1 and 1 = 3.
Many believers in God confess that strong verification isn't possible in
relation to showing God exists but weak verification has to suffice. But to say
that the being that alone matters and who wants to be all that matters to you
expects you to thrive on weak verification for his existence and goodness is to
say something stupid and nonsensical and incoherent. Incoherent and therefore
meaningless.
Remember that we are taking God to mean the being who serves all our devotion
for he is pure love. God then is not merely a theory but a demand upon our
devotion. The Verification Principle even if flawed is not flawed when it
eliminates God as meaningful because it is meaningless to say you should commit
totally to God when you cannot know how to show he is there or if he isn't. To
say weak verification will do for God is meaningless itself. Why? Because you
need strong verification for such a big claim as that God exists. Secondly, the
statement , "Weak verification is enough for faith in God and God is okay with
it" makes two statements and both of them are meaningless and destroyed by the
standard VP.
Some have reported visions of God. But the visions are just forms in which God
appears not God himself for he is invisible by nature. So you only verify to
yourself that you had a vision not that there is a God. When the Bible speaks of
Christians seeing God in Heaven it never says they will see the divine essence.
They only see some form God takes such as light or his taking the form of a man
with white hair in white robes sitting on a throne. But these things are only
like visions symbolising God and seeing them is not seeing God. The Bible says
that nobody has never seen God (John 1). Belief in God is far more meaningless
than belief in Odin or Jupiter for these gods are physical beings. The Church
describes God as being not as a being. Being is not a thing so God is not a
thing to be seen even if he is real. God cannot be verified by sense experience
at all. It cannot be proved that the Catholic communion wafer is really Jesus
Christ or that the Catholic notion that the bread can become Jesus without
changing in any detectable way makes sense. God and the wafer would be an
extreme violation of the Verification Principle. All agree that the principle is
right in spirit and needs revision. All honest people agree that if the
Principle is flawed it is not flawed then for if it does not apply in relation
to God and the wafer it applies to nothing. God and the wafer are Catholicism
declaring the principle to be a lie and a heresy.
Miracles are supernatural events. They are events that cannot be explained by
nature. Miracles would be meaningless too for you can't see or sense what causes
them. For a logical positivist, a miracle report would just be a report about a
miracle and nothing more and would have no importance. When you don't see the
cause, you cannot determine if the supernatural was involved. If you cannot
determine the presence of the supernatural then you cannot tell if it was indeed
a miracle. And religion condemns magic but what if the miracle is really
evidence for magic if it is evidence for anything?
Some say that talk about God has meaning because you will see when you die if
there is a God. But what about now? There might be a God and you might not find
out when you die. You might be unsaved meaning you will never know for sure. And
besides God can’t expect us to care if we meet him after death or not. He
requires selfless love that puts doing right first at your own expense meaning
we must be good for it is good and not because we will meet God.
Atheists hold that evil and useless suffering proves that there is no God. They
say there is strong verification that there is no God. Believers respond that
evil and useless suffering are mysteries, we don't know why an all-good God
allows them to happen. In other words, they put their belief beyond any hope of
falsification. They act like a wife who learns that her husband is cheating on
her. She may say he is possessed, mad or that a demon looking like him is making
it look like he is cheating on her. No matter what happens, they refuse to admit
that anything can disprove their belief. Religious believers are saying that
nothing is bad enough to make them doubt God which is a vicious arrogant stance
when you think about it. If they were in the moccasins of the sufferers they
might not be so keen. It is thought that they want to console. The truth is that
they want to avoid seeing the full blackness and horror of evil afflicts others.
They want to put the pressure of trying to see the love of God on the victims
and on themselves and their own friends. They victimise the victims for if you
are led to see your problems as less than what they are, you risk looking for
the wrong solutions or getting the wrong support and ending up with "support".
The victims think the believers care about them. They don't care much when they
want to protect themselves from admitting the full horror of what is happening
to you. The believers say God as creator and king is more important than human
suffering and the victims should see that. God religion is a terrible danger.
Religionists of God often have a God who picks out people who die estranged from
him for eternal damnation in which they will be trapped in their sinfulness and
suffer terribly and despairingly forever and ever. They even adopt beliefs that
cannot be proven or verified that put God in a bad light but they still refuse
to see the contradiction between God's love and this extreme evil.
Despite the problems with the VP, we know that it is right to make it
meaningless when somebody says of a painting, "It's the most beautiful painting
in the world." She is making her desire and subjective assessment out to be an
objective truth. For some God is treated like a dogma. The real believer treats
God as if she is in a relationship with him which is based on his beauty. She
has to see the beauty of God and his ways even in the midst of ugliness and
despair. She is even worse than the admirer of the painting in terms of
embracing nonsense ...
The Verification Principle has something in it - all admit that. If it doesn't
show that a God who sends people to Hell and who lets awful suffering happen is
meaningless then it has nothing in it.
Is doing right good because God commands it or does God command it because it is
good? Having God's endorsement or approval doesn't offer any explanation of why
a thing is good or not. Saying good is just whatever God commands is to cheat a
person of their right to know why they must do what is supposed to be right. And
it is opposing morality and right and wrong and putting obedience in their
place. If God commands things because they are good it means he is not God.
Honouring good matters and honouring him does not - if there is a choice. He
should be honoured for the sake of good and not his own sake. Thus good is the
real God. The point is, God has to be morality to be worshipped and to be God
but this is impossible. God cannot be his commandments any more than you can be
your mathematical ability. God cannot be a fact for there is no explanation for
why we must believe. Therefore even the most loose and liberal version of the
VP, any type that makes do with weak verification, declares God to be
meaningless or nonsense.
The standard VP rejects the meaningfulness of ethics and morality as there is no
way of showing if something really is or isn't moral.
Yet believers worry more about it rejecting God!
The standard attacks God as God and God as morality. That is two blows!
So we see that faith in God is an extreme violation of the Verification
Principle. People might say the principle eliminates too much but they don't say
it eliminates everything. It certainly eliminates the God of paradoxes and the
Jesus of paradoxes who is both fully God and fully an ordinary man and yet one
person and wafers which are supposed to be the living Jesus! Understanding that
God is to be the person who is your absolute and ultimate concern shows that
believers cannot say, "Logical positivism allows for weak verification. Thus we
have weak verification for God." You would not use weak verification to say that
the person you are going to marry is in the attic. See the point? God is not
meant to be a mere theory but the object of a relationship.