Ayer, Implications, practice essay

It is important not to confuse this view of religious assertion with the view that is adopted by atheists, or agnostics. For it is characteristic of an agnostic to hold that the existence of a god is a possibility in which there is no good reason either to believe or disbelieve; and it is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least probable that no god exists. And our view that all utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical, so far from being identical with, or even lending any support to, either of these familiar contentions, is actually incompatible with them. For if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheists’s assertion that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is one a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted. As for the agnostic, although he refrains from saying either that there is or that there is not a god, he does not deny that the question whether a transcendent god exists is a genuine question. He does not deny that the two sentences ‘There is a transcendent god’ and ‘There is no transcendent god’ express propositions one of which is actually true and the other false. All he says is that we have no means of telling which of them is true, and therefore ought not to commit ourselves to either. But we have seen that the sentences in question do not express propositions at all. And this means that agnosticism also is ruled out. 

1. Examine the argument and/or interpretations in the passage

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

Ayer’s article focuses on the notion that ‘God-talk is evidently nonsense’, and his argument put forth to defend his view. Ayer, was a member of the school of logical positivist which meant that he aimed to make clear distinctions between what is viewed as cognitive and empirical against the metaphysical realities of religion and life. Similarly, Ayer’s perspective upon how we viewed the life was largely influenced by the Vienna Circle, a group of thinkers who stressed the importance of only being concerned with what is empirically verifiable, subsequently, the Vienna Circle were influenced by Wittgenstein (‘that which we cannot speak of, we must remain silent’), who ironically moved away from his early writings, to state that all language could be regarded as meaningful. 

In this extract from his article (God-talk is evidently nonsense), Ayer comments that should we take on his perspective that religious language is meaningless in all areas then the propositions raised by the agnostic and the atheist are ‘equally nonsensical.’ This arises from the fact that Ayer considered meaningful statements to be meaningful only if they were able to be empirically verified. The verification principle, of which Ayer is associated with states that statements must be a posteriori synthetic or analytic, since the atheists’ suggestions that ‘it is at least probable that no god exists’ cannot be empirically verified then his utterance is nonsensical. This is due to the fact that the theist or the agnostic both rely on the possibility that a god may exist, and if this is the case, then the utterances from both the agnostic and the atheist result in a self contradictions. As one states there is a possibility of a God, and the other rejects any existence of a God, in both cases they contradict one another. In some respects, Ayer’s argument from this contradiction appears rational as surely something cannot be truly meaningful if the claim can not become something objectively accepted by both parties. Furthermore, it results in a meaningless struggle between both parties attempting to prove what simply cannot be proved. Instead, what occurs is the rise in support for Ayer, from similar backgrounds, for instance, Richard Dawkins, is a advocate for a more scientific approach, and thus perhaps he would agree with the notion that God is a meaningless concept as it cannot be analysed or verified. This quality of objective thinking is a continuos stream of thought within Ayer’s article; however, one can observe that Ayer would rejects Dawkins’ perspective, as the latter is also an anti-theist. Despite this, perhaps if the agnostic acknowledges a possibility of a God then there must be some sort of verification. 

The extract demonstrates a curiosity about the existence of a God and claims that the agnostic ‘does not deny that the question whether a transcendent god exists is a genuine question.’ Ayer dismisses this as a pointless concept; however, perhaps there is some value for curiosity. Within the verification principle, Ayer himself initiated the notion of weak verification, perhaps the agnostic is not as absurd as we first thought, and perhaps nature and ‘order and regularity’ as discussed previously by Ayer is a form of verification that supports the agnostic’s curiosity. For instance, we are able to experience nature and observe it and surely the presence of design supports the concept of a metaphysical deity, and so the agnostic can be forgiven for his stance? Ayer, suggests not, because order in the world shows just that, making the assumption that it leads to God is a ‘transitional error.’ However, Swinburne criticises Ayer on the basis that the argument from design, may have weaknesses but the teleological argument must be a part of the overall cumulative argument (in addition to the ontological and cosmological argument), that in turn strengthens the arguments and proofs for God, and since the cumulative argument has a priori and a posteriori arguments, surely it should appear to Ayer. And therefore, the discussion of God is a reasonable argument and not ‘nonsensical.’ 

Ayer is attempting to convince the reader that the propositions of the atheist and the agnostic are nonsense statements, but does Ayer brush away the statements of the two parties as non-propositional too quickly? The extract claims that as the propositions from the atheist and the agnostic are contradicting or different that this immediately determines that they are meaningless; as the readers we are forced to question and re-imagine the legitimacy of Ayer’s argument. Although, we can agree with Ayer on the basis that God is a metaphysical term that cannot be proven, He can also not be disproven, and although the falsification principle may argue that once again this is support for Ayer’s proposal, the weakness lies within the fact that Ayer’s own verification principle cannot be proven therefore how easily do we trust his word? Some arguments state that actually the words of the agnostic and the atheist are sound as it provides a function for the individual. For example, R.B. Braithwaite suggests that religious language used by any individual can be a cognitive statement as religious language lays out the foundation of how we should lead our lives and it expresses the way we should live our lives. Ayer’s comment that the agnostic and atheist is thus put up for question as our actions for how we address our lives as a result of religious language does determine that it is cognitive as the actions can be tested. 

Furthermore, if we develop this notion of contradicting statements as being a support for Ayer’s stance on the rejection of the use of metaphysical language, we should see how it can be applied to other areas of the abstract. One such instance, provided for by Bertrand Russell, is love, one party may argue that they are in love, whilst their partner may disagree, does this devalue the statements if there is a contradiction, Ayer’s notion that non-cognitive statements are supported by contradictions seems questionable. However, perhaps Ayer does have some reliability as with such statements, according to the falsification principle we are able to verify what is true and what is false, (‘propositions one of which is actually true and the other false’), something which can not be applied to God. Therefore, the extract is intelligible. 

Also perhaps Ayer is trying to demonstrate in the extract that because the atheist and the agnostic consistently stand by their statements that they are instead mistaken and unknowingly speaking non-propositional statements. Since statements about God can neither be objectively stated as true or false we can develop the argument further from the falsification principle. Anthony Flew stated that religious language was meaningless because it could not be verified as true or false, and thus he supports the extract and what Ayer states. However, he comments that is more meaningless to discuss, because the individual can not be swayed as despite whatever evidence may be provided there will always be a stubbornness so that the individual refuses to accept that their statements are meaningless.

In conclusion, the extract can be interpreted as Ayer’s appeal to the atheist and agnostic to understand that their arguments and statements are non-cognitive, and that the self contradictions only supports Ayer’s argument that religious language is meaningless. The extract is attempting to express that all religious language is nonsensical and not just restricted to the religious believer.