Verifiability criterion of meaning

Reading Alvin Plantinga: "God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God"

In this book Plantinga has a chapter entitled "Verificationism and Other Atheologica". I found it interesting because it is still quite common to hear people trying to end debate on one thing or another by saying "it can't be verified by empirical evidence" or "this statement has no meaning because it cannot be falsified."

Plantinga looks particularly at Anthony Flew's discussion about verification and makes some interesting responses to this debate:

"It appears, then, that according to Flew a meaningful (contingent) proposition must be falsifiable by observation statements; there must be some finite and consistent set of observation statements that entail its denial."

This is the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning and it assumes that only empiricism can provide a valid philosophy of truth. But Plantinga points out that the history of the attempts to clearly define a verifiability criteria show that it has failed to demonstrate any effective use as a tool for evaluating truth and meaning.

"The fact is that no one has succeeded in stating a version of the verifiability criterion that is even remotely plausible; and by now the project is beginning to look unhopeful."

To suggest that religious statements are or are not verifiable is an empty challenge when no fruitful verifiability criterion for the truth of anything can be put forward. The only possible way of stating a verifiability criterion that might be of some use would be to establish the criterion by fiat: "the statements of science and 'common sense' are meaningful, all others are not." This effectively is what many scientists and philosophers have tried to do.

It cannot be demonstrated that a statement or proposition that cannot be falsified is not meaningful or true. "Unconditional love exists" can neither be verified nor falsified, yet it is still a meaningful statement and is still arguably true.