“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?