“God talk is evidently non-sense” A.J. Ayer. Ayer is a logical positivist – a member of the Vienna Circle. Any claim made about God (including Atheistic)

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Anthony Flew and A. J. Ayer

Advertisements

Meta-Ethics Slavery is evil Honesty is a virtue Abortion is wrong ‘Meta’ from Greek meaning ‘above’ or ‘after’

Verificationism and religious language Michael Lacewing

Exemplar Script Exercise – G582 Religious Ethics.

Pragmatism: metaphysics is meaningful only if it has practical consequences What we mean by reality is the product of our ideas and ideals, all of which.

What do you see? According to logical positivism, do your statements have meaning? What do you see? According to logical positivism, do your statements.

Religious Language Michael Lacewing

1 From metaphysics to logical positivism The metaphysician tells us that empirical truth-conditions [for metaphysical terms] cannot be specified; if he.

Task: Take a look at the following statements: “I am the bread of life” “I am the true vine” “I am the way, the truth and the life” “I am the resurrection.

This is the beginning of the “The Jabberwocky” by Lewis Carrol.

“God Exists” ???????. “God Exists” REALISM VS ANTI-REALISM “I exist” “prime numbers exist” “the off side rule exists” “God exists” Clearly, when we talk.

Epistemology revision Responses: add a ‘no false lemmas’ condition (J+T+B+N) Responses: replace ‘justified’ with ‘reliably formed’ (R+T+B) (reliabilism)

Introduction to Ethics Lecture 6 Ayer and Emotivism By David Kelsey.

Religious Language Speaking about God Part 1. Why Religious language? The concept of a God is: Something other Something timeless We talk of things using.

Michael Lacewing Emotivism Michael Lacewing

The Verification Principle & Religious Language The Logical Positivists, led by the philosophers of the Vienna Circle and then further developed by A.J.Ayer.

Ludwig Wittgenstein EARLY: PICTURE THEORY LATER: LANGUAGE GAMES.

© Michael Lacewing Faith without reason? Michael Lacewing

Ethical and religious language Michael Lacewing

Religious Language  Language is about communication  Religious language is a means of communicating about religion  This can be within three contexts:

This is the beginning of the “The Jabberwocky” by Lewis Carrol.

Religious Experience Peter Baron & Dr Guy Williams Department of Philosophy and Religion Wellington College.

LO: I will know how thinkers have solved the problem of speaking meaningfully about God by making negative statements of what God is not.

Meta-Ethics Emotivism. Normative Ethics Meta-ethics Subject matter is moral issues such as abortion, war, euthanasia etc Provides theories or frameworks.

Proof and Probability (can be applied to arguments for the existence of God)

BRAIN IN VATS ѕєяριℓ тυтι ѕєяριℓ тυтι Bilkent University, April 2008 вяαιη ιη ναтѕ вяαιη ιη ναтѕ q ɹɐ ıu.

Rachel Petrik Based on writing by A.J. Ayer

Epistemology revision Concept empiricist arguments against concept innatism:  Alternative explanations (no such concept or concept re- defined as based.

Is it possible to verify statements about God? The Logical Positivists would say no – God is a metaphysical being and it is impossible to empirically verify.

John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener AS Philosophy God and the World – Seeing as hns adapted from richmond.

Religious Experience. Religious Experience and the argument A religious experience may be understood as any encounter with God, or what is ultimate. It.

Can religious language be meaningful? Today’s lesson will be successful if you can: Explain the Verification Principle Critique the Verification Principle.

Excerpted from Dallas Roark’s Introduction to Philosophy, 1982 Epistemology: How do we know? Excerpted Dallas Roark’s Introduction to Philosophy, 1982.

Ayer & the Weak Verification Principle LO’s: 1: To understand the ideas of A.J. Ayer 2: To consider how he developed the verification principle LO’s: 1:

It is now generally admitted, at any rate by philosophers, that the existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic.

Chapter 1: The cosmological argument AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion AS Level © Nelson Thornes Ltd 2008 Revision.

My Philosophy teacher wants to kill me! Ellie: I think Karen is going to kill me. Rosie: She doesn’t seem that bad to me; she never acts like she hates.

Language Games Offside!. Language Game Theory – Ludwig Wittgenstein An Austrian general said to someone: 'I shall think of you after my death, if that.

Criticisms of Flew Possible responses Hare – religious statements are unfalsifiable and non-cognitive but still play a useful role in life (parable of.

Religious language: cognitive or non-cognitive?

Extent to which Challenges to Religious Experience are Valid, including CF Davis

Religious responses to the verification principle

Norman Malcolm American philosopher. 11 June 1911 – 4 August 1990.

Verificationism on religious language

Ethical Language - Emotivism

Ludwig Wittgenstein EARLY: PICTURE THEORY LATER: LANGUAGE GAMES.

Introduction to Meta-Ethics

Religious Language as cognitive, but meaningless

The philosophical problems of the verification principle

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE.

Reading material Articles: Tillich on symbols & Aquinas on analogy questions 1. What is art? 2. Does it open up new levels of reality for you? 3. Does.

RECAP Odd one out Match them up 1. Hare 4. Hick 7. Flew 2. Swinburne

The Ontological Argument

Do Religious Experiences prove God exists? Discuss in pairs.

Did King Harold die at the battle of Hastings?

Is this statement meaningful?

4 B Criticisms of the verification and falsification principles

The Verification Principle

Philosophy of Religion Revision: Religious Language

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE.

Flying pig spotted in Amazon Jungle…

Discussion: Can one meaningfully talk of a transcendent metaphysical God acting (creating sustaining, being loving) in a physical empirical world? Ayer.

The Ontological Argument

‘A triangle has three sides’

Religious Language as cognitive, but meaningless

‘Torture is Good’ How does that phrase make you feel?

By the end of today’s lesson you will

Ethical and religious language

Verification and meaning

A guide for the perplexed (who think it is all meaningless)

Presentation transcript:

“God talk is evidently non-sense” A.J. Ayer

Ayer is a logical positivist – a member of the Vienna Circle. Any claim made about God (including Atheistic) is dismissed as it fails to pass the Verification Principle – Statements about God are neither tautological, mathematical nor empirical. Ayer defends his weaker version of the VP in dismissing claims about God and in doing so presents an attack on the argument from Religious Experience.

The very nature of God means that God is beyond human understanding / comprehension. “truth claims” regarding God are therefore impossible / meaningless. Knowledge / truth requires proof – analytic or synthetic. Religious experiences cannot be used as evidence to support God’s existence because they too cannot be empirically verified.

Religious language – the Verification Principle What is language about God being used to do? Are the claims made about God intended to be universal? Does the language I use to talk about God need to be cognitive? Does a non-cognitive approach to religious language fair better? What about Anti-Realism? If the claims I make about God are true for me, does it matter if they cannot be objectively proven? Can “God talk” be meaningful in any particular context ? (Wittengenstein)

Religious Experience as evidence of the existence of God? Swinburne’s cumulative approach to arguing God’s existence can be seen as using Ayer’s Weak version of the VP (establishing the probable truth via observation) Principle of Credulity would suggest that Rel Exps are genuine and therefore provide empirical evidence to support the existence of God. Rel Exps are Subjective though and so Ayer still rejects them.

Impact on religion & human experience The only language which can have any meaning is non-cognitive / anti realism This limits the contexts in which language can be used –no room for inter religious dialogue, no room for philosophical debate into the nature of God On what basis can I claim to be right and the next person be wrong? (especially if they are considering flying planes into tall buildings) Does religious belief need a firmer basis than “that’s just what I think” – is anti realism an empty husk?