Abstract

A simply written answer to the charges that religious statements are meaningless because they are non-verifiable or misuse language. Ping admits that the language of faith is not literally sensible and hence cannot be objectively established as true, nor is it a strict construction according to ordinary usage. However, he maintains that religious language is nonetheless meaningful when seen in its context of encounter and commitment so that verification occurs in the determination of life. The testing process is the adequacy of religious statements to give meaning and direction to life. Ping is well aware that this use of language lacks clarity and precision. What he does not seem to be aware of is the enormity of problems which this position raises, such as the posited sharp distinctions between sensible experience and "life," between "experiential" and "experimental" verification. A helpful bibliography is included.—S. A. S.