A.J. Ayer - 'God-talk is evidently nonsense'
- Created by: Aagya.P
- Created on: 16-02-15 12:14
View mindmap
- A.J. Ayer - 'God-talk is evidently nonsense'
- Overall argument
- The key argument presented here is that 'god-talk' is nonsensical because it cannot be empirically proved
- Explores the Verification Principle - if it can't be verified it isn't true
- Paragraph summaries
- Paragraph A
- God is a 'meta-physical' term so it can neither be true or false = it is meaningless to discuss it
- Believers claim they can see God in nature however, this just reduces his power = invalid argument
- God's existence isn't even 'probable' because there is no way to empirically test it
- Paragraph B
- Both groups continue to talk about God (even if it is denying his existence)
- Ayer rejects the link between his argument and those of atheists or agnostics
- Paragraph C
- If God was made EQUAL to nature there would be meaning
- A non-empirical God is meaningless
- BUT, we present him as the CREATOR of nature = unintelligible choice
- Paragraph D
- Ayer isn't concerned with what people feel about religion
- He simply wants to analyse the use and meaning of religious language
- Paragraph E
- God can only be proven through faith = not empirical = not meaningful
- Theists themselves admit they are unable to describe God = this is unintelligible and helps to prove Ayer's argument
- Link to Anselm's definition of God
- Analogy of the mystic: if he can't describe what he's saying, he's talking nonsense
- Paragraph F
- The mystic doesn't have genuine knowledge bc of intuition, it is simply an insight into the state of his mind
- Challenges claims of Religious Experiences / Donovan
- A mystic's claims are groundless and nonsensical because they are unverifiable
- The mystic doesn't have genuine knowledge bc of intuition, it is simply an insight into the state of his mind
- Paragraph G
- Comparison between seeing a yellow patch and seeing God
- Yellow patch makes sense bc we can see yellow things but we can't prove the existence of a transcendent being = irrational
- Criticising people for using R/exp as proof for God
- Comparison between seeing a yellow patch and seeing God
- Paragraph H
- Conclusion: r/exp is psychologica-lly interesting but they should have no implications
- Without being verified, no statement is useful
- Paragraph A
- Implications for Human experience
- There would be no moral standards either
- All art, law, philosophy, politics etc would be rendered meaningless because they can't be truly verified
- Life would be very bleak
- Implications for Religion
- His theory challenges the basis of religion which could cause doubt
- Ayer could influence a rise in secularism
- If we rejected everything, we would have no rules to follow!
- R. Dawkins would support Ayer's views
- But Dawkins would also be criticised bc he's an atheist
- Implications for Morality
- Unable to verify any sort of objective morals
- Reduces everything to mere opinions - 'hurrah/boo'
- No reason to challenge one another
- Context
- A.J. Ayer is a British philosopher
- He wrote his book 'Language, Truth and Logic' in 1936
- Within this book, Ayer rejected all forms of 'god-talk' on the basis that it was meaningless bc it had no proof
- He was inspired by the work of the 'Vienna Circle' - a group of philosophers who operated in the 1920s
- These philosophers applied the rules of science and maths to language to formulate the movement known as 'Logical Positivism'
- They came up with the verification principle
- Overall argument
Comments
No comments have yet been made