Ayer: Example Essay (Question created by me)

Ginny.T 

These considerations (mystic unable to provide evidence) dispose of the argument from religious experience, which many philosophers still regard as a valid argument in favour of the existence of a god. They say that it is logically possible for men to be immediately acquainted with God, as they are immediately acquainted with a sense-content, and that there is no reason why one should be prepared to believe a man when he says that he is seeing a yellow patch, and refuse to believe him when he says that he is seeing God. The answer to this is that if the man who asserts that he is seeing God is merely asserting that he is experiencing a peculiar kind of sense-content, then we do not for a moment deny that his assertion may be true. But, ordinarily, the man who says that he is seeing God is saying not merely that he is experiencing a religious emotion, but also that that there exists a transcendent being who is the object of this emotion; just as the man who says that he sees a yellow patch is ordinarily saying that not merely that his visual sense-field contains a yellow sense-content, but also that there exists a yellow object to which the sense-content belongs. And it is not irrational to be prepared to believe a man when he asserts the existence of a yellow object, and to refuse to believe him when he asserts the existence of a transcendent god. For whereas the sentence ‘There exists here a yellow-coloured material thing’ expresses a genuine synthetic proposition which could be empirically verified, the sentence ‘There exists a transcendent god’ has, as we have seen, no literal significance. 

(a) Examine the argument and/or interpretations in the passage
(b) Do you agree with the idea(s) expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its implications for understanding religion and human experience. 

(a)

Ayer’s scholarly background dictates that his writings be governed by the school of logical positivism. Although, Ayer himself was never a member of the prestigious Vienna Circle, he was largely influenced by the writings and teachings of the group. The Vienna Circle was first founded upon the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein, his statement ‘what we cannot speak we must pass over in silence’, implies that unless we have genuine empirical evidence for what is being said, and the statement is logically analytical any other statements are dismissed as nonsense statements. Having been influenced by the Vienna Circle and the importance of empiricism and analytic statements, Ayer would eventually contribute to the movement by providing his own version of the verification principle. The article at hand explores Ayer’s own reasoning that all metaphysical statements are nonsense as they have no empirical backing. 

In the passage included, Ayer comments that since the mystic cannot provide any meaningful information about the truths revealed to them through religious experiences, then we should ‘dispose of the argument from religious experience.’ Ayer makes a valid point in that without empirical evidence and simply the testimonies of others to rely on, it does not prove the existence of a transcendent being. Furthermore, the verification principle dictates that we should only talk of what we are able to empirically verify, something of which can not be done with religious experiences. The response Ayer has towards religious experiences is to state that the individual is merely having an overwhelming emotional encounter. This is reminiscent to the study that William James conducted, James’ work did not attempt to prove the existence of a transcendent being, and his eventual data only revealed that the individuals had an experience that tied with their emotional responses. James worked out four characteristics that came into being with religious experiences: the ineffable, noetic, transient and the passive. This, observation parallels what Ayer states in the passage, because Ayer did not reject that something occurred in a religious experience, but rather that the experience is mistaken, as it is rational to assert that they experienced a ‘peculiar kinda of sense-content’ but irrational to connect it to the source of a transcendent being. 

The extract also has a focus on determining whether or not to trust the word of the mystic when they argue for the existence of God because of religious experiences. Ayer appears to find it difficult to ascertain where the certainty of the testimonies originate, especially so when individuals insist on the existence of a ‘transcendent being who is the object’ of the emotion. Now, Swinburne’s principle of testimony and credulity calls on us to believe the words of the mystic, if they were not under the influence of drugs, alcohol and are in the right state of mind. This is due to the fact that Swinburne makes the assumption that someone sane would not have a reason to lie. 

Having asserted the fact that Ayer accepts that a statement can be meaningful if the individual claims they experiences a strange sense-content, but we should refuse their testimony if they suggest that there exists a transcendent being. Now, Ayer declares that the religious believer would adamantly point that their experience did lead to a proof in God even though it is not a synthetic proposition, because neither can we engage in the same experience willingly or entertain the idea of a deity. In which case, perhaps Ayer’s argument supports Anthony Flew’s own writings. Flew was also a logical positivist and according to him, the religious believer would still argue that a God existed, even despite all the evidence against. Flew utilises Wisdom’s Parable of the Invisible Gardener to portray this point, the religious believer sticks to their opinion even though we cannot prove not see the existence of a God. In relation to the passage, a testimony may reveal the effects and emotions of the individual but never once does it assert the existence of a transcendent God. 

On the other hand, Ayer uses the contrasting image of a ‘yellow object’ to ascertain why we could believe on testimony but not the other. His argument is that a yellow object is a significant topic because it a synthetic proposition. This translates to the yellow object being able to be verified, whereas God cannot, and has ‘no literal significance.’ Perhaps, Ayer is stating that the religious believer’s conviction is an example of the hurrah/boo theory. So when the religious believer says that they have had a divine encounter, what they really mean is that they want or believe that God has communicated with them, when in actuality, they have just a sense encounter. The other interpretation of the mystic’s conviction, may also be revealed by Hare’s bliks. This would mean that the religious believer is always going to refer to a deity for an explanation, as that is how their blik intends for them to lead their life. In which case, it would explain why ‘the man who says that he is seeing God...asserts the existence of a transcendent god.’ 

Moreover, in the case of religious assertions and statements, Ludwig Wittgenstein attempts to disassociate overlapping topics, for instance the comparison which Ayer uses (the yellow patch and God), cannot be compared, as the religious believer and Ayer are players in two different language games. As of such, there may be a failure on both sides understanding each other; however, even if Wittgenstein is able to defend the religious believer to an extent, it does not answer the article’s question on determining how meaningful religious language is. Instead, it only emphasises the fact, that there is a level of inability to understand that has resulted from religion. Which in turn leads the reader back to Ayer’s point that religious language is meaningless because it fails to provide the audience with knowledge and empirical evidence beyond confusion. 

The extract reveals that Ayer is attempting to put down the religious believer’s claims that religious experiences re still rational proofs for God. Ayer instead argues that what we assume to be religious experiences are only peculiar sense-encounters that are mistaken for an encounter with the divine. This is portrayed by the fact that the mystic has no substantial empirical evidence to support his terms,whereas something such as ‘yellow object’ isa genuine synthetic proposition that can be empirically verified. 

(b)

If what Ayer states in the article is true then the implications for religion are devastating and this also has a dramatic effect on our own daily lives. His absolutist approach towards religious statements is detrimental on society and may affect not just religion but the wider regions of society, and thus I find it difficult to find a common ground with Ayer, beyond the fact that empirical evidence is required for a statement to be meaningful. 

Firstly, if what Ayer states becomes a true reality then the implications for religion are that religious ceremonies and texts become useless concepts that serve no purpose. Furthermore, once these rituals are deemed worthless, Ayer has effectively removed the importance of spiritual community. This in turn may have major impact on the lives of individuals as many believers have grown up with religion being a constant presence, by suddenly suggesting that everything that they have been told is a nonsense concept may not just result in disillusionment and anger, but for some, it strips them of their individuality. Similarly, for the lives of those who live with religion being a constant, such as a priest or the catholic pope, their whole function within society is torn down. Moreover, for people who do not have the benefit of close confidantes, religion and a deity is a source of comfort, in which case, we could argue that Ayer’s perspective is cold and unfeeling as it does not take into account the emotions of individuals reliant on religion. Ironically, some supporters for the notion of religion come from atheists, Durkheim was an atheist and he would have disregarded Ayer’s idea that religion is a nonsense topic. This is due to the fact that Durkheim respected that even if he did not believe in the idea of a transcendent being, that religion was able to serve a function, and that was to bring the community together. It therefore appears that religion does have some meaning, and if it serves for a beneficial purpose then we should question whether or not Ayer’s argument is a good one. Similarly, many countries, and the United Kingdom have mutually benefitted from religion, it builds on Durkheim’s opinion that religion is meaningful. Our laws of the land are built upon the original decalogue, and therefore even if it may be indirect, religion has served a major purpose in our lives. Thus the implications of Ayer’s argument, is devastating and disregards the fact that religion is not just metaphysical but does have an empirical measure of power over our lives. 

Furthermore, if Ayer is correct, then the implications are that anything abstract becomes a meaningless concept. For instance, according to Ayer’s verification principle, emotions are unable to be verified and would therefore become meaningless, if this is the case then all emotions become void. Instead, people would not only not be able to express their feelings, but by being constricted only towards facts we lack the ability to progress, this is seen in the fact that people have achieved what they have because of their passion. Also, phrases such as ‘I love you’ are considered incredibly meaningful, especially between family members and partners, especially so in comparison to an empirical and objective statement such as a diamond is made up of carbon. The verification principle has reduced human experience to one that is void of important aspects that make up what is to be human. 

To further build upon this interpretation, the implications for morality are just as severe. If emotions lacked the weight that they did, if we agreed with Ayer then morality would also become a meaningless concept. Morality can not be measured or verified, instead it may be argued to be some sort of human ‘delusion’ as described by Dawkins. But if we really took upon this view, then we would lack the moral groundworks, such as we should not steal because we may consequently hurt the victims’ feelings and lives. This outlook upon life would be considered nonsense, instead Ayer’s form of verification and approach would give way to anarchy. 

However, Ayer may still argue that his approach is worthwhile because it allows the public to clarify between what propositions are true and what are not. And the more analytic approach and rigour to detail may mean that problems and moral decisions are avoided. For instance, if there is a lack of ambiguity because things can be verified and not then there would be clear line as to what is true or false. In situations such as court perhaps this would be beneficial; however, even so how would a crime be weighted? After all we cannot verify how much punishment a crime is worth. Perhaps, Ayer’s absolutist approach and quick dismissal of religious language is naive, in some respects. 

As we explore Ayer’s passage, we must remain open to the fact that he focuses a lot on the verification principle, which is ironic as the principle itself can not be verified and is viable to criticism. Although Ayer may have used the verification principle to forge a reason as to why religious is meaningless, in the process of it all, Ayer has also removed the importance of subjects such as history, arts, music and perhaps even philosophy. This is especially important, history has been a major part of humanity’s progress, and by removing its importance would be to suggest that humanity’s evolution in the sciences and the empirical (the very things Ayer values) as nonsensical topics that are not worth the mention. 

It is with these things in mind, that has caused me to make the decision to disagree with his opinion. Ayer may have attempted to validate his own opinions, but in my perspective it appears that he has lost sight of the overall picture, and the function that religion has had to play in our lives, regardless of whether or not we are theistic. Similarly, if Ayer’s principle was received positively worldwide then we may see a drastic change in the way in which we live our lives; a world of brute facts.