The statement that ‘religion and science are at loggerheads’ can be justified according to logical positivism, which is a scientifically orientated philosophical movement that arose in the early part of the twentieth century. It was influenced and created mainly by the philosophers David Hume and A.J. Ayer. The former’s belief that claims about reality must be verified by evidence founded the core of this movement’s philosophy. This idea influenced the movement’s verification principle, and allows for distinguishing the difference between science and religion in terms of their language and meaning. Another philosopher that focuses on the former is Ludwig Wittgenstein, who argued that although science and religion may seem like they govern the …show more content…
All other statements were considered meaningless. Therefore, the logical positivists argued that religious language must be meaningless because the propositions it makes are impossible to verify. It also tries to link philosophy with science. More directly, though, Logical Positivism arose in the early twentieth century from a group of teachers and students from the University of Vienna. This “Vienna Circle,” as it came to be called, consisted of several scientists who wanted to develop a modern and scientific philosophy that would sweep away many of the problems of metaphysics and religion. Logical Positivism only became more prominent when A.J. Ayer wrote his Language, Truth, and Logic in …show more content…
The Verification Principle is a principle that tries to distinguish genuine factual statements from meaningless statements. According to Logical Positivists, the purpose of language is to make statements about the world and to communicate experiences. Essential to Logical Positivism it is therefore that only empirically verifiable statements were genuine. Hence, this philosophy had a negative perspective toward the metaphysical truths claims of religion. For Logical Positivists, many theologians speak of God’s existence, the soul, and immortality as factual matters, but these matters cannot be put to empirical and scientific observation. Thus, any statements about these things are emotional statements. Hence it could be argued that religion and science are at loggerheads in terms of the language of science and religion according to the verification