source: Royal Latin School

‘God-talk is evidently nonsense’ – A.J. Ayer

Paragraph A

Basic Content / Argument

Not only can God not be proved, but his existence cannot even be probable. This is because ‘God’ is a metaphysical term which makes not reference to our world of sense experience.

Plain English Paraphrase

In general, modern philosophers admit that the existence of God cannot be proved. However, it can also be shown that the existence of God is not even probable. To be probable, it would have to relate to what we can observe around us (‘empirical’) and so would give us ideas about our world which we can test (‘experiential propositions’). But this is not possible. People sometimes try to argue for God through the order and regularity of the universe, but this cannot work because it’s really just a statement about nature. God would still be regarded as a transcendent being who could not be defined in terms of such observations. ‘God’ is a metaphysical term, so it cannot even be probable that God exists. In other words, if he is beyond our normal experiences, then he can’t fit with our ideas of what’s probable or not. No sentence which attempts to describe a transcendent God can have any literal significance.

Context

First paragraph of the section, setting the scene for Ayer’s argument against the possibility of meaningful ‘God-talk’. It establishes Ayer’s key claim that metaphysical statements cannot be true or false, and so cannot be meaningful. Ayer then goes on to contrast this position with more typical forms of atheism and agnosticism, and elaborates how ideas and so-called experiences of God are unintelligible.

Argument / Interpretation

Some points to consider:

• Philosophers are generally agreed that God cannot be demonstratively proved: true / false? Which philosophers, and why? This connects with atheism / unbelief topic.
• If the existence of God were probable, the claim that he exists would be an empirical hypothesis (based on sense perception). Do such beliefs have to be empirically verifiable? This connects with religious language topic: verification principle. Have theists regarded God as empirically verifiable? (Design argument, religious experience)
• The claim that God is apparent in the regularity of nature tells us nothing more than that the requisite regularity is present in nature, and does not really tell us about God himself. This connects with the design argument from AS. Ayer’s view fits with criticisms of that argument: it’s a bad analogy (Hume) and has been displaced by evolution (Dawkins). Perhaps there can be no knowledge of what is beyond the natural? Consider the counter-arguments.
• God is a transcendent being who might be known but could not be defined through empirical manifestations. This connects with religious language and religious experience topics (A2) and design argument (AS). Explain ‘transcendent being’: fair description of God? How might God be known through empirical manifestations? Is it impossible for God to be fully known (defined) through empirical manifestations? (Hick on verification).
• A metaphysical utterance cannot be true or false. Verification principle, cognitive / non-cognitive language, connecting with religious language topic. Consider logical positivism and Ayer’s view on verification. Compare / contrast with atheism / unbelief topic. What are the implications of dismissing metaphysical claims?

Key terms you must deal with: proof, empirical hypothesis, transcendent, metaphysical.

Secondary Points

Although the main focus is on religious language, Ayer also raises:

• The design argument for God’s existence
• Atheism

Also, by implication (talking about ‘manifestations’), we might say that religious experience is relevant to what Ayer is saying.

Contribution

Here Ayer makes a major contribution to the debate surrounding religious language. He takes a very firm approach, based on the verification principle. Ayer’s views may be contrasted with those of other philosophers in the religious language topic.

Evaluation – Part (b)

This will depend on your own personal perspective, but you would have to address the following issues:

• Is Ayer right about metaphysical claims being unverifiable and meaningless?
• What are the key strengths / weaknesses of Ayer’s verificationist position?
• Are there any decent alternatives to what Ayer is saying?
• Is Ayer’s understanding of God adequate?
• What are the implications of saying that God’s existence is not even probable?
• What are the implications of saying that metaphysical terms are meaningless?

You would also have to discuss further the implications of these views for religion and human experience (see essay frame).

Paragraph B

Basic Content / Argument

The view that God-talk is nonsense also contradicts atheism and agnosticism, because these regard statements about God as meaningful but either untrue or uncertain.

Plain English Paraphrase

Ayer’s view is different from typical atheist and agnostic approaches. Typically, they would regard the existence of God as a possibility, but there isn’t enough evidence for them to believe. Yet, for Ayer, statements about God do not even make sense, so his views are not compatible with more traditional atheism. The atheist’s argument that there is no God also has no sense, for there’s no real method for testing that view. Similarly, the agnostic wrongly supposes that the question of whether God exists is a genuine one. Statements and questions about God have no sense, so agnosticism is also ruled out.

Context

This second paragraph develops Ayer’s claim that God-talk is meaningless and that God’s existence is not even probable. Here, Ayer demonstrates the implications of his view for atheism and agnosticism. These perspectives are misguided, because they assume that religious language is meaningful. In the next paragraph, Ayer will move on to consider and dismiss the possibility of a non-empirical or super-empirical God.

Argument / Interpretation

Some points to consider:

• It is characteristic for an atheist to hold it to be at least probable that God does not exist. Which examples could we give? Perhaps consider David Hume. Make connections with A2 topic unbelief and atheism.
• The atheist’s assertion that there is no God is equally nonsensical as the claim that God exists. Here, Ayer must have in mind his verification principle – the statement could not be demonstrated either analytically or synthetically. This connects with A2 religious language topic. How do you think that someone like Richard Dawkins would respond to this claim?
• The statement that ‘there is a transcendent God’ does not express a proposition at all. There is some controversy over this claim – mystics might claim to have experienced the transcendent God. This connects with the A2 topic religious experience. Can God in principle be verified? Perhaps consider John Hick’s arguments regarding verification, that religious claims in principle might be verifiable.

Key terms you must deal with: atheists, agnostics, nonsensical assertion, transcendent God.

Secondary Points

The passage is primarily concerned with unbelief and religious language. Some secondary points you might briefly raise are:

• How theistic argument might contradict what Ayer is saying (g. the design argument (AS topic). Perhaps it makes sense to ask whether God exists.
• Perhaps also consider falsification (Anthony Flew). Can the claim that ‘God does not exist’ be falsified?

Contribution

Here Ayer makes a significant contribution to the debates surrounding atheism and agnosticism, by provocatively claiming that disbelief in God is just as meaningless as belief in God. His views can be contrasted with more familiar forms of atheism.

Evaluation – Part (b)

Address the following issues:

• Is what Ayer is suggesting just a different form of atheism?
• Are atheist statements really nonsensical? How would someone like Richard Dawkins explain atheism instead? What role would science play in this?
• Evaluate verification: is it of any use for understanding atheism?
• What are the implications of saying that atheism is just as meaningless as theism? Should we forget about the God debate?
• What are the implications of putting verification into practice?

Paragraph C

Basic Content / Argument

The idea of a personal God beyond our observation is also unintelligible, since such a person could not be verified. ‘God’ is not a genuine name.

Plain English Paraphrase

If God is made equivalent to natural objects, then this language might mean something. If in a thunder storm someone says ‘God (Jehovah) is angry’, we might understand that God’s anger is equivalent to thunder. Yet, in sophisticated religions God is supposed to control nature, rather than being a part of it. He has abilities beyond our observation (super-empirical attributes). However, the idea of a person with non-empirical attributes (qualities we can’t see) is unintelligible. It is not verifiable. The mere existence of the noun (word) does not make the object real. The study of God’s attributes shows that God is not a real name.

Context

In this third paragraph, Ayer continues his argument that God-talk is nonsense. Having suggested that atheism and agnosticism are concerned with a meaningless problem (paragraph B), he now argues that a non-empirical personal God is devoid of meaning. Ayer will then go on to relate this argument to views which theists themselves hold and claims about their experience.

Argument / Interpretation

Some points to consider:

• “Cases where deities are identified with natural objects” refers to the desire of some atheists to give naturalistic accounts of religion (g. Freud). This connects with atheism / unbelief topic in A2. Ayer allows that this kind of nature worship might mean something but points out that modern believers have tried to go beyond it. Is Ayer right that this less sophisticated but more empirical approach to religion might have more meaning?
• But could God be known indirectly through natural processes (like a thunder storm)? This view might be reflected in some forms of the design argument (AS topic), particularly Swinburne’s argument from beauty. Is it foolish to claim that a thunder storm might indirectly reflect upon the power and beauty of God’s work? Ayer suggests that a God ‘beyond’ such experiences would not make sense, but others would disagree.
• The idea of a God with non-empirical attributes makes no sense. This is because of Ayer’s verification principle – the need for scientific testing. However, theists may point to the idea of perfection, which cannot in the case of God be known simply or empirically. This is the case with the ontological argument for God (A2 topic); God is the greatest thing we can conceive, rather than experience. Is this really nonsense?
• The idea of a non-empirical God could never be verified. Again, this ties to the A2 religious language topic. Explain verification principle and logical positivism. Is Ayer right?

Key terms you must deal with: super-empirical attributes, empirically verifiable, transcendent object.

Secondary Points

This passage is concerned with the idea that a non-empirical God is meaningless. However, Ayer touches on some secondary points:

• Naturalistic accounts of religion (“identified with natural objects”), such as that given by Freud. Is the ‘basic’ form of religion just a projection of the human mind onto the world around?
• “Awe of natural process” in modern times is often reflected in the Design Argument for God.

 

Contribution

Here Ayer attacks a key basis of theism – the idea that God could exist despite not being directly observable. The whole idea of non-empirical qualities is discarded as nonsense. This is important, because there are many things in our lives which are non-empirical.

Evaluation – Part (b)

Address the following issues:

• Is a non-empirical God really less meaningful than, say, simple nature worship?
• Is it possible to make a logical case for a God beyond our experiences?
• Is the verification principle really able to demonstrate that the idea of a non-empirical God is meaningless?
• What are the implications of seeing non-empirical matters as meaningless?
• What are the implications of discarding God?

Paragraph D

This is a short paragraph and we can deal with this briefly.

Content   Ayer is not concerned with the causes of religious feelings; only the meaning of language.

Paraphrase   We are not concerned with the causes of religious feeling or the likely future of religious faith. We are concerned only with religious knowledge, establishing that there can be no transcendent truths of religion. The language is not meaningful.

Context   This short paragraph simply clarifies Ayer’s aims. He is interested in religious language, rather than the history or future of religion. It links his criticism of religious truth claims in the first three paragraphs to the rest of his discussion of theism.

Argument / Interpretation

Consider:

• “Causes of religious feelings” – again this may tie to naturalistic accounts of faith, such as those of Freud. Contrast Ayer with Freud, since Ayer is only concern with language, not psychology. This makes a good tie with atheism / unbelief (A2).
• “Possibility of religious knowledge” – e. all that Ayer cares about is how religious language cannot be verified. This connects with the A2 topic of religious language.

Key terms to deal with: Causes of religious feeling, transcendent truth.

Secondary Points

Ayer does not get involved in the discussion of the causes of religious feelings, but he alludes to the fact that this debate is happening (see above).

 Contribution

Ayer’s contribution has nothing to do with the explanation of religion, only with the argument that it does not mean anything.

Evaluation – Part (b)

Consider:

• Is Ayer correct to ignore the causes of religious feelings? Surely, if religious language is nonsense, Ayer should be able to explain why such nonsensical language came to be used.
• Evaluate verification principle: “possibility of religious knowledge”.
• What are the implications of seeing religious language as meaningless?

Paragraph E

Basic Content / Argument

Theists themselves also believe that they cannot describe God, which suggests that the concept of God is not meaningful.

Plain English Paraphrase

Interestingly, the argument that talk of God is meaningless fits with some things theists themselves say. The nature of God is transcendent and a mystery. However, transcending human understanding amounts to the same thing as being unintelligible (making no sense), and we couldn’t describe such a thing. It may be that God is known through faith, without reason (perhaps because he cannot be proved). This may mean that we cannot define God, and the idea of God cannot be fully known. Theists would probably agree with this. But if we can’t define God, it’s impossible to make meaningful statements about him. If the mystic admits that he cannot describe what he experiences, then he is bound to talk nonsense.

Context

Having set out his main argument (in the first four paragraphs) that religious language is meaningless, Ayer here attempts to show that his views connect with the claims of theists (people who believe in God). He will then give further consideration to the claims of mystics in the next paragraph.

Argument / Interpretation

Points to consider:

• Theists believe that “God is a mystery which transcends human understanding”. Which theists? This connects with two A2 topics: religious experience and religious language. You should be able to explain mysticism. You should also explain what non-literal accounts of religious language (analogy, symbol) have to say about this.
• “What is unintelligible cannot be significantly described” – this takes us back to A2 religious language and verification. Ayer decides what is intelligible (or not) by applying the verification principle. Explain this and the logical positivists. Consider alternate perspectives such as Hick or Swinburne.
• The object of “purely mystical intuition” cannot be intelligible to reason. This needs to be discussed in light of A2 religious experience. How have some philosophers assessed mystical experiences? Might Swinburne have something to say in defence of mystics, against Ayer?

Key terms you must consider: theists, ‘transcends the human understanding’, ‘mystical intuition’, ‘impossible to define God in intelligible terms’.

Secondary Points

The main thrust deals with the inability of theists to give meaningful description to God. However, Ayer also touches upon:

• The question of whether God is known through reason or faith.
• Mysticism – a form of religious experience

Contribution

Ayer is advancing a fairly bold and original argument, that theists themselves really believe that God is meaningless. He justifies this by observing that theists readily admit that God cannot be fully described.

Evaluation – Part (b)

Consider:

–           Is Ayer correct in his claim that God cannot be defined or described?

–           Are mystics really “bound to talk nonsense”?

–           Could we account for religious experience in any other way?

–           What would the implications be for ignoring religious experiences?

–           What are the implications of seeing God as indefinite, un-provable?

Paragraph F

Basic Content / Argument

The claim of mystics to know of God through intuition is also groundless, since they cannot test their claims through the senses or explain the knowledge which they claim to have gained.

Plain English Paraphrase

The mystic may argue that he perceives truth through intuition and we don’t share that insight, so we cannot say that there is no knowledge in what he has perceived (‘cognitive faculty’ = ability to know something). But the mystic cannot give us anything empirically verifiable (something we can check through the senses), so his claims are unintelligible. Intuition has revealed no facts. It’s no good saying that the mystic has facts about God but cannot express them, because if there were facts then they could be explained. He could show how the facts about God could be checked through the senses (‘empirically determined’). The fact that the mystic cannot test what he ‘knows’ empirically (through senses) shows that he is not in a position of knowledge (‘cognitive state’). So, the mystic gives no information about our world, he just tells us what’s going on in his mind.

Context

Having discussed how common theistic attitudes connect with his argument about meaning in religious language, Ayer now looks at mysticism specifically. The view that God cannot be described suggests that God is unintelligible.

Argument / Interpretation

Points to consider:

• Mystics claim to know through intuition. This ties directly to A2 religious experience. You should be able to explain what mysticism is and consider why Ayer views it as he does. Gives examples. Do they have no way of expressing what they experience?
• Mysticism is not a “cognitive state”. This links with A2 religious language: distinguish cognitive and non-cognitive language. Why does Ayer think that mysticism is non-cognitive? Verification. Why might some theists claim that mysticism is cognitive?
• A ‘real’ experience could be tested empirically – this is the verification principle pure and simple.
• The mystic “merely gives us indirect information about the condition of his own mind”. A2 religious experience. What other critics of religious experience have said something similar? On what grounds might someone dispute this? Tests for authenticity – Swinburne: how would these tests contradict what Ayer is saying?

Key terms you must consider: mystic, intuition, cognitive faculty, intelligible propositions, empirically determined.

Secondary Points

The thrust of Ayer’s argument rejects the idea of mystical experience, but he also incidentally raises secondary issues:

• Cognitivism / non-Cognitivism (this is a factor in ethics, as well as religion)
• Reliability and validation of experiences
• Psychology – “information about the issue of his own mind”. Are religious experiences signs of delusion?

Contribution

Ayer here builds on his general dismissal or religion with a distinctive rejection of personal and mystical intuition – it is nonsense.

Evaluation – Part (b)

Consider:

• Is mystical language necessarily non-cognitive?
• Does our inability to test what the mystic knows really matter? What else can’t we test?
• Does a rejection of mysticism lead to a rejection of theism?
• What are the implications of dismissing religious and mystical experience?
• What are the implications of seeing knowledge as something which always requires an empirical test?

Paragraph G

 Basic Content / Argument

We normally believe sense experiences (e.g. seeing a patch of yellow), so why not believe religious experiences? Ayer claims that God is non-empirical, and so we could not check this. We can always check up on yellow patches, however.

Plain English Paraphrase

The point made above (that talk of God is non-empirical) shows that the argument from religious experience does not work, even though many philosophers still think that it does. They think that it’s possible to perceive God directly with the senses (e.g. ‘see’ him); there’s no reason to believe someone who claims to see a patch of yellow with the senses and yet not believe someone who claims to see God. In answer – if the man claiming to see God is just claiming to have some peculiar sensation then there’s no need to deny that this is true. But usually, those having religious experiences claim that it’s more than emotion – there is a transcendent being (God) who is the object of that feeling. Similarly, those seeing yellow things think that there are real yellow things rather than just odd sensations. It is not irrational to believe a man perceiving yellow objects and yet refuse to believe someone claiming the existence of a transcendent God. Claims that there are yellow coloured things are “genuine synthetic propositions” (i.e. statements which really can be tested for truth) and can be empirically verified (checked through the senses). However, the claim that God exists has no literal significance, no real meaning.

Context

Ayer has argued that the concept of God is meaningless because it is non-empirical (makes no reference to sense experience). Similarly, mystical experiences mean nothing, because they cannot be tested with the senses. Here he argues that religious experience as a whole can be discounted because it cannot be verified (by contrast with simple everyday experiences).

Argument / Interpretation

Points to consider:

• Is it “logically possible for men to be immediately acquainted with God”? This links in with your A2 religious experience topic. Swinburne and other would maintain that this is quite possible. However, note the weakness of the ‘direct awareness’ argument – it’s not good enough to say that ‘I just know’ that I’ve experienced God. Surely we need criteria for determining the truth of religious experiences, as Swinburne suggests. Is this or Ayer’s perspective more convincing?
• Are religious experiences really different from ‘normal’ experiences in that they cannot be verified? This links our A2 topics of religious experience and religious language together. This raises logical positivism and the verification principle. Some would claim that religious experiences can be in some ways verified, or at least aspects of religious experiences. Look at attempts to check the authenticity of religious experiences (RC Church, Swinburne). This also links to the problem of ‘disanalogies’ between religious and normal sense experiences (J.L. Mackie); note that Alston is not convinced that religious experiences really are different from all of our other experiences.
• “… genuine synthetic proposition which could be empirically verified” – but what do we mean by “empirically verified”? Links to A2 topic religious language and verification. But does the verification principle really prove that things exist, or just that they are perceived by many people? Ayer had to distinguish between the strong and weak principles because he realised that hardly anything can be really verified in the strict sense. What about events such as Our Lady of Fatima (links to A2 religious experience), when thousands of witnesses claimed to have seen the same peculiar solar activity?

Key terms you must deal with: ‘argument from religious experience’, ‘immediately acquainted with God’, transcendent being, empirically verified, ‘no literal significance’.

 Secondary Points

Ayer’s main point is an attack on religious experience, but he raises other issues:

• When should we / should we not believe a person?
• Are there general differences between ‘normal’ and ‘religious’ experiences?

Contribution

Here Ayer adds fuel to the fire of the religious experience debate by being very negative about any possibility of religious experiences. He puts forward a bold idea: it is always irrational to believe someone who is making claims which could never be tested?

Evaluation

Consider:

• Are religious experiences really in another category to normal experiences? Is Ayer being completely honest here?
• Can we test religious experiences?
• What does verification really mean?
• What are the implications of following the verification principle strictly? Can we do it?
• What are the implications of ignoring religious experience?
• What are the implications of not believing people who cannot offer us empirically verifiable propositions?
• What would the world be like if we were all verificationists?

Paragraph H

Basic Content / Argument

There is nothing to the argument from religious experience. Claims to religious or moral knowledge don’t amount to anything, because they cannot be checked by the senses. This is only interesting in terms of what it says about a person’s psychology.

Plain English Paraphrase

We conclude that the argument from religious experience is flawed / false (fallacious). It is interesting that people have these experiences from a psychological point of view, but that doesn’t mean that there is such a thing as religious knowledge. Neither do experiences of morals show that there is such a thing as moral knowledge (i.e. knowledge of what is right and wrong). The theist thinks his experiences are cognitive (contain knowledge) but is deceiving himself, because he cannot prove it with his senses (empirically verify). Philosophers who think that they ‘know’ something about religion or morals are just expressing feelings that would interest a psychoanalyst. No intuition (direct perception) can reveal truth unless in statements which can be checked (verified). All claims which can be checked with the senses can be incorporated into science – a system for knowing things.

Context

Ayer concludes this essay with a firm rejection of religious experience and, indeed, all religious and moral knowledge. This builds on his general argument that non-empirical and unverifiable claims are meaningless.

Argument / Interpretation

Points to consider:

• Argument from religious experience is false / flawed. But is it? This connects with A2 topic religious experience. What counter-arguments are there to what Ayer is saying? He thinks it’s flawed because of the verification principle – see A2 religious language. Explain this and the logical positivists.
• Religious experiences are interesting from a psychological point of view. Which psychologists have taken an interest? A2 religious experience. Have psychologists arrived at similar or different conclusions to Ayer?
• Religious claims are non-cognitive. This links to A2 religious language. Consider verification. Is this true? What are the key strengths and weaknesses of this approach to language?
• Meaningful language has to work in a scientific system. Is that true? Consider language games and Wittgenstein in A2 rel. language.

Key terms you must consider: ‘psychological point of view’, religious knowledge, moral knowledge, empirically verifiable, ‘system … which constitutes science’.

Secondary Points

Ayer concludes by the whole idea of religious experience or knowledge, but he also touches upon secondary points:

• What religion tells us from a psychological point of view.
• The possibility (or lack!) of moral knowledge.
• The link between language and science.

Contribution

Ayer’s final paragraph contributes a remarkable and controversial argument: there could never be such a thing as religious knowledge or moral knowledge (note that addition). Meaningful language has to be incorporated into a system of science.

Evaluation

Consider:

• Must religious language be meaningless? Must the argument fail?
• Is there no such thing as moral knowledge either? Are there any problems associated with this view?
• What are the implications of seeing language as purely scientific?
• Does psychology agree with what Ayer claims here?
• What are the implications of Ayer’s radical conclusion?
• What are the implications of eliminating religious or moral truth claims?
• What are the implication of seeing language as just a matter of science?