Terminology Tuesday: Verification

Verification, Kinds of. Eschatology (Gk. eschatos, “last things”) deals with what will happen in the end. Verification has to do with how to test the meaning or truth of a claim. Out of the school of logical positivism grew the verification principle. Such proponents as A. J. Ayer, following David Hume, originally claimed that for a statement to be meaningful it had to be either true by definition or else empirically verifiable through one or more of the senses. This proved too narrow, since on this ground the principle of empirical verifiability was not itself empirically verifiable. It too was meaningless.

In the wake of the death of strict verifiability grew a broadening of the principle to include other kinds of verification—experiential, historical, and eschatological. Most philosophers agreed that there had to be specific conditions under which one could know if a statement was meaningful or true. Antony Flew, following John Wisdom’s “invisible gardener” parable, argued that, unless there are criteria by which one could know if something is false, one cannot know it is true. Unless one can specify some condition(s) by which a claim could be falsified, there is no way to verify it either. Something has to be able to count against a proposition if evidence is to count for it. This means that, unless a theist can specify conditions under which we could know that God does not exist, there is no ground on which to claim that he does exist.

Types of Verification. Attempts to meet the challenge of verification of a truth claim fall into three categories, past, present, and future. Those that offer criteria for the present can be divided into theistic proofs and experiential tests.Historical. Among Christian apologists, John W. Montgomery and Gary Habermas argue that the Christian truth claims can be verified from history by way of the resurrection of Christ (see RESURRECTION, EVIDENCE FOR). This view is called historical apologetics or historical verification.

Present Verification. Those who seek some sort of verification in the present fall into the broad categories of rational and experiential. The former offer traditional theistic proofs as verification. Traditional theists note that this is precisely what arguments for and against God’s existence do (see GOD, EVIDENCE FOR). If one could offer a disproof of God, then they could falsify the claim of theism (see GOD, ALLEGED DISPROOFS OF). Likewise, a proof for God can verify his existence. Anything short of a full proof still tends to verify or falsify.

Experiential tests can be special or general. The special ones are often called mystical and deal with unique religious experiences. The latter deal with experiences available to all. Some apologists offer nonmystical experiential tests for the truthfulness of religious statements. Ian Ramsey spoke of the empirical fit of statements that evoke an experience of God (see Ramsey). Friedrich Schleiermacher spoke of a feeling of absolute dependence. Paul Tillich’s sense of ultimate commitment fits this category. Some have developed an argument from religious experience as a test for their claims about God. Elton Trueblood is an evangelical who has tried this.

Eschatological Tests. Those coming from the empirical traditions tried other kinds of verification-falsification. John Hick offered the principle of eschatological verification (Hick, 252–74). Claims for immortality can be verified if, for example, we consciously observe our own funerals. We can know God exists after death if we have an experience of transcendent rapture and bliss that brings ultimate fulfillment.

Evaluation. Since other forms of verification are discussed as noted above, eschatological verification will be treated here. On the positive side, future verification does seem to meet the minimal criteria for meaning and truth. It does provide specific conditions under which we could know if certain religious claims are true.

On the other hand, the knowledge will be too late to do anything with it. Atheists (see ATHEISM) bank on the nonexistence of God and hell. If the atheist wakes up after death to find that he or she was in error on both counts it will be too late. That was the point of Pascal’s Wager (see PASCAL, BLAISE). Even for the theist it could be too late. We want to know now whether it is worth sacrificing all for God, and which God is the true one. Why suffer for Christ, even to the point of death without evidence that Christianity is true (cf. 2 Cor. 11:22–28; 2 Tim. 3:12)? It might be deemed better to avoid all the misery and have a fun-filled life now.

Sources
  A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic  A. Flew, New Essays in Philosophical Theology  G. R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic  J. Hick, The Existence of God  J. W. Montgomery, The Shape of the Past  ———, Christianity and History  I. Ramsey, Religious Language  E. Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion

Geisler, N. L. (1999). Verification, Kinds Of. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (pp. 758–759). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.