Implications: AYER (edexcel)

Philosophy of Religion

AYER: IMPLICATIONS

Basic Breakdown of the article:

• an inability to demonstrate the existence of a non-animistic God -> no empirical hypothesis 
• the failures of atheism and agnosticism
• categorising God as a noun is a form of primitive language, fronting God beyond the empirical world is ‘unintelligible.’ 
• no meaningful propositions can be made about transcendent knowledge 
• faith not reason, we cannot discuss what transcends human understanding theists say we cannot talk of GOD - Flew
• mystic states that Ayer is talking about a different realm of knowledge called intuition, but the mystic is wrong there are no factual values, ‘indirect information about the condition of his own mind’
• religious experience - sensory experiences, category mistake, we can only say something exists if it has synthetic value and empirical evidence 
• religious experiences do not lead to further knowledge, no cognitive assertions, is only interesting in the psychological sense

Key Concepts:

• regularity in nature is not God -> Kant (criticisms of the ontological, design and cosmological)
• Verification principle
• bad metaphysics
• Anselm’s fool, 
• Hume’s criticism of the ontological argument
• verification principle 
• Language Games
• Aquinas (talk of God through a posteriori)
• Myth and Symbol
• Dawkins’ memes
• Christian doctrines, 
• religious experiences
• logical positivists
• Mystics -> Theresa of Avila
• Falsification principle 
• impact on society -> 9/11, martin luther king
• Freud, 
• Intuitionism (Donovan)
• Science, 
• Russell: ‘there is no difference between the man who drinks much and sees snakes and the man who eats little and sees God’

AYER: MAIN POINTS	WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT:	SOME IMPLICATIONS
an inability to demonstrate the existence of a non-animistic God -> no empirical hypothesis	attributes of a God of any non-animistic religion cannot be proved. if he did exist there would be an empirical hypothesis.  argument for ‘regularity in nature’ -> design argument, only indicates design not an actual deity.  talk about Ayer and why there is weak or strong verification principle. Since we can not justifiably discuss God then the statements are meaningless.	Kant: existence is not a predicate (ontological argument) Hume: no knowledge of God, because it does not further our understanding of God.  a ‘leap’ into conclusions that lead to God.  Ayer is still ignorant to the fact that the ontological argument is an a priori argument that can be comprehended and understood.  Russell: the universe is a brute fact.
the failures of atheism and agnosticism	agnosticism - there is no good reason to believe or disbelieve,  atheism- there is a larger probability that there is no God agnostic is wrong as he does not pronounce either sentences true or false, and the atheist is wrong as the assertion is non-sensical as they are protesting against the existence of a being that transcends human understanding.  Talk of the verification principle Hume: we can imagine that there is no God, and therefore the statement must not be able to proved.  Aquinas’: only a fool would believe in a contradiction	Ayer’s own inability to accept his early work as reliable is cause for concern.  weak verification was a failure and did not work.  Swinburne’s own cumulative argument means that there is more proof than not for the existence of a God. historical evidence: Jesus’ resurrection Anthony Flew: the religious believer will try and believe for how long as they want.  R. M. Hare: idea of the bliks atheism is in the minority and yet religion is still flourishing…
identifying God with natural objects and if they can be significant	it is fair to compare God to something empirical as it adds to the idea of awe: numinous as Otto would comment  external to the outside world (Kant) fostering illusions Aquinas: talk of God analogically	Wittgenstein’s: language games, the believer and the logical positivist (Ayer) are in different language games and therefore do not understand.  Freud: illusions, and a cry of help, and need in the hope o  powerful father figure.
No significant propositions can be made about a transcendent being	Religious feelings, what the theists wish to convey are not significant. No point in furthering the pointless discussions.  William James feelings of the numinous, ineffability and awe etc	Dawkins’ memes, and the fact that dogmas are passed on form generation to generation R. B. Braithwaite: story which may not be true but is able to influence others, and religious people to believe in a certain way.  also through conditioning and upbringing does the child get affected to believe in God. R. A. Sharpe: use of religions language can be manipulated - moral atheism, dogma, religious believers have been taught to be scared and therefore morality is ‘muddied.’ Richard Harries: archbishop disagrees with this.
Faith not reason	religious experiences -> donovan’s idea of intuition if it transcends human understanding = unintelligible  Christian doctrines are external and a mystery not literal. the mystic is thus mistaken and talks nonsense ->  verification principle  Kierkegaard’s leap of faith	Hick’s: idea of eschatological verification Durkheim: idea that even if it cannot be reasoned with that we should accept that it serves some function and role within society.  it is exactly what the logical positivists do not stand for, that humans have progressed in the arts and sciences.
mystic states that Ayer is talking about a different realm of knowledge called intuition, but the mystic is wrong there are no factual values, ‘indirect information about the condition of his own mind’	intuition leads to knowledge -  H. P. Owen: perceived in our relationships with other people Examples of early mystics: Theresa of Avila logical positivists: early Wittgenstein, Vienna Circle Ayer states that there is nothing understandable if it has no facts	Ken Hill: posits that just because we cannot comprehend everything should we deem it meaningless. We cannot understand fully how the human brain works, but we do not completely disregard this.  Meaningless to me? -> is it the same as inherently meaningless.  idea of love? (Fletcher), we can still feel things even if sometimes it is hard to describe.  Swinburne: Principle of testimony and credulity.
religious experience - sensory experiences, category mistake, we can only say something exists if it has synthetic value and empirical evidence	Verification principle Falsification principle  only experiencing a particular sense-content talk only of things we have synthetic empirical evidence of, everything that exceeds our understanding is non-significant.	William James: idea that just because it does not point to the individual that it was definitely God (noetic - does provide knowledge of something beyond our understanding) , that it does prove that the individual experiences something of the numinous (Otto) effects on society, by mere belief: positive -> martin luther king negative -> 9/11
religious experiences do not lead to further knowledge, no cognitive assertions, is only interesting in the psychological sense	religious experiences and such religious language is acceptable as a form of psychological endeavour: Marx - social effects on people (‘opiate of the people’) Freud - primitive humans and link back to the paragraph about God and natural objects intuition: H. P. Owen and Donovan how does intuition play a role.	how do we accept the rest of human history then? what does it say for the millions of religious believers in the role? surely religious language must have some meaning.  Freud: ‘universal neurosis’ creativity of humans based on the religious teachings, eg. Michelangelo’s ‘Last Supper’ therefore it is meaningful.