A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
‘God-talk is evidently nonsense’ – A.J. Ayer
Paragraph A
Basic Content / Argument
Not only can God not be proved, but his existence cannot even be probable. This is
because ‘God’ is a metaphysical term which makes not reference to our world of
sense experience.
Plain English Paraphrase
In general, modern philosophers admit that the existence of God cannot be proved.
However, it can also be shown that the existence of God is not even probable. To
be probable, it would have to relate to what we can observe around us (‘empirical’)
and so would give us ideas about our world which we can test (‘experiential
propositions’). But this is not possible. People sometimes try to argue for God
through the order and regularity of the universe, but this cannot work because it’s
really just a statement about nature. God would still be regarded as a transcendent
being who could not be defined in terms of such observations. ‘God’ is a
metaphysical term, so it cannot even be probable that God exists. In other words, if
he is beyond our normal experiences, then he can’t fit with our ideas of what’s
probable or not. No sentence which attempts to describe a transcendent God can
have any literal significance.
Context
First paragraph of the section, setting the scene for Ayer’s argument against the
possibility of meaningful ‘God-talk’. It establishes Ayer’s key claim that metaphysical
statements cannot be true or false, and so cannot be meaningful. Ayer then goes on
to contrast this position with more typical forms of atheism and agnosticism, and
elaborates how ideas and so-called experiences of God are unintelligible.
Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
- Philosophers are generally agreed that God cannot be demonstratively
proved: true / false? Which philosophers, and why? This connects with
atheism / unbelief topic.
- If the existence of God were probable, the claim that he exists would be
an empirical hypothesis (based on sense perception). Do such beliefs have
to be empirically verifiable? This connects with religious language topic:
verification principle. Have theists regarded God as empirically verifiable?
(Design argument, religious experience)
- The claim that God is apparent in the regularity of nature tells us nothing
more than that the requisite regularity is present in nature, and does not
really tell us about God himself. This connects with the design argument
from AS. Ayer’s view fits with criticisms of that argument: it’s a bad
analogy (Hume) and has been displaced by evolution (Dawkins). Perhaps
there can be no knowledge of what is beyond the natural? Consider the
counter-arguments.
- God is a transcendent being who might be known but could not be
defined through empirical manifestations. This connects with religious
1
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
-
language and religious experience topics (A2) and design argument (AS).
Explain ‘transcendent being’: fair description of God? How might God be
known through empirical manifestations? Is it impossible for God to be
fully known (defined) through empirical manifestations? (Hick on
verification).
A metaphysical utterance cannot be true or false. Verification principle,
cognitive / non-cognitive language, connecting with religious language
topic. Consider logical positivism and Ayer’s view on verification.
Compare / contrast with atheism / unbelief topic. What are the
implications of dismissing metaphysical claims?
Key terms you must deal with: proof, empirical hypothesis, transcendent,
metaphysical.
Secondary Points
Although the main focus is on religious language, Ayer also raises:
- The design argument for God’s existence
- Atheism
Also, by implication (talking about ‘manifestations’), we might say that religious
experience is relevant to what Ayer is saying.
Contribution
Here Ayer makes a major contribution to the debate surrounding religious language.
He takes a very firm approach, based on the verification principle. Ayer’s views may
be contrasted with those of other philosophers in the religious language topic.
Evaluation – Part (b)
This will depend on your own personal perspective, but you would have to address
the following issues:
-
Is Ayer right about metaphysical claims being unverifiable and
meaningless?
What are the key strengths / weaknesses of Ayer’s verificationist
position?
Are there any decent alternatives to what Ayer is saying?
Is Ayer’s understanding of God adequate?
What are the implications of saying that God’s existence is not even
probable?
What are the implications of saying that metaphysical terms are
meaningless?
You would also have to discuss further the implications of these views for religion
and human experience (see essay frame).
2
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph B
Basic Content / Argument
The view that God-talk is nonsense also contradicts atheism and agnosticism,
because these regard statements about God as meaningful but either untrue or
uncertain.
Plain English Paraphrase
Ayer’s view is different from typical atheist and agnostic approaches. Typically, they
would regard the existence of God as a possibility, but there isn’t enough evidence
for them to believe. Yet, for Ayer, statements about God do not even make sense,
so his views are not compatible with more traditional atheism. The atheist’s
argument that there is no God also has no sense, for there’s no real method for
testing that view. Similarly, the agnostic wrongly supposes that the question of
whether God exists is a genuine one. Statements and questions about God have no
sense, so agnosticism is also ruled out.
Context
This second paragraph develops Ayer’s claim that God-talk is meaningless and that
God’s existence is not even probable. Here, Ayer demonstrates the implications of
his view for atheism and agnosticism. These perspectives are misguided, because
they assume that religious language is meaningful. In the next paragraph, Ayer will
move on to consider and dismiss the possibility of a non-empirical or super-empirical
God.
Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
- It is characteristic for an atheist to hold it to be at least probable that
God does not exist. Which examples could we give? Perhaps consider
David Hume or Baron D’Holbach. Make connections with A2 topic
unbelief and atheism.
- The atheist’s assertion that there is no God is equally nonsensical as the
claim that God exists. Here, Ayer must have in mind his verification
principle – the statement could not be demonstrated either analytically or
synthetically. This connects with A2 religious language topic. How do you
think that someone like Richard Dawkins would respond to this claim?
- The statement that ‘there is a transcendent God’ does not express a
proposition at all. There is some controversy over this claim – mystics
might claim to have experienced the transcendent God. This connects
with the A2 topic religious experience. Can God in principle be verified?
Perhaps consider John Hick’s arguments regarding verification, that
religious claims in principle might be verifiable.
Key terms you must deal with: atheists, agnostics, nonsensical assertion,
transcendent God.
Secondary Points
The passage is primarily concerned with unbelief and religious language. Some
secondary points you might briefly raise are:
3
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
-
-
How theistic argument might contradict what Ayer is saying (e.g. the
design argument (AS topic). Perhaps it makes sense to ask whether God
exists.
Perhaps also consider falsification (Anthony Flew). Can the claim that
‘God does not exist’ be falsified?
Contribution
Here Ayer makes a significant contribution to the debates surrounding atheism and
agnosticism, by provocatively claiming that disbelief in God is just as meaningless as
belief in God. His views can be contrasted with more familiar forms of atheism.
Evaluation – Part (b)
Address the following issues:
- Is what Ayer is suggesting just a different form of atheism?
- Are atheist statements really nonsensical? How would someone like
Richard Dawkins explain atheism instead? What role would science play
in this?
- Evaluate verification: is it of any use for understanding atheism?
- What are the implications of saying that atheism is just as meaningless as
theism? Should we forget about the God debate?
- What are the implications of putting verification into practice?
4
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph C
Basic Content / Argument
The idea of a personal God beyond our observation is also unintelligible, since such a
person could not be verified. ‘God’ is not a genuine name.
Plain English Paraphrase
If God is made equivalent to natural objects, then this language might mean
something. If in a thunder storm someone says ‘God (Jehovah) is angry’, we might
understand that God’s anger is equivalent to thunder. Yet, in sophisticated religions
God is supposed to control nature, rather than being a part of it. He has abilities
beyond our observation (super-empirical attributes). However, the idea of a person
with non-empirical attributes (qualities we can’t see) is unintelligible. It is not
verifiable. The mere existence of the noun (word) does not make the object real.
The study of God’s attributes shows that God is not a real name.
Context
In this third paragraph, Ayer continues his argument that God-talk is nonsense.
Having suggested that atheism and agnosticism are concerned with a meaningless
problem (paragraph B), he now argues that a non-empirical personal God is devoid
of meaning. Ayer will then go on to relate this argument to views which theists
themselves hold and claims about their experience.
Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
- “Cases where deities are identified with natural objects” refers to the
desire of some atheists to give naturalistic accounts of religion (e.g.
Freud). This connects with atheism / unbelief topic in A2. Ayer allows
that this kind of nature worship might mean something but points out
that modern believers have tried to go beyond it. Is Ayer right that this
less sophisticated but more empirical approach to religion might have
more meaning?
- But could God be known indirectly through natural processes (like a
thunder storm)? This view might be reflected in some forms of the design
argument (AS topic), particularly Swinburne’s argument from beauty. Is it
foolish to claim that a thunder storm might indirectly reflect upon the
power and beauty of God’s work? Ayer suggests that a God ‘beyond’
such experiences would not make sense, but others would disagree.
- The idea of a God with non-empirical attributes makes no sense. This is
because of Ayer’s verification principle – the need for scientific testing.
However, theists may point to the idea of perfection, which cannot in the
case of God be known simply or empirically. This is the case with the
ontological argument for God (A2 topic); God is the greatest thing we
can conceive, rather than experience. Is this really nonsense?
- The idea of a non-empirical God could never be verified. Again, this ties
to the A2 religious language topic. Explain verification principle and logical
positivism. Is Ayer right?
5
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Key terms you must deal with: super-empirical attributes, empirically
verifiable, transcendent object.
Secondary Points
This passage is concerned with the idea that a non-empirical God is meaningless.
However, Ayer touches on some secondary points:
- Naturalistic accounts of religion (“identified with natural objects”), such
as that given by Freud. Is the ‘basic’ form of religion just a projection of
the human mind onto the world around?
- “Awe of natural process” in modern times is often reflected in the Design
Argument for God.
Contribution
Here Ayer attacks a key basis of theism – the idea that God could exist despite not
being directly observable. The whole idea of non-empirical qualities is discarded as
nonsense. This is important, because there are many things in our lives which are
non-empirical.
Evaluation – Part (b)
Address the following issues:
- Is a non-empirical God really less meaningful than, say, simple nature
worship?
- Is it possible to make a logical case for a God beyond our experiences?
- Is the verification principle really able to demonstrate that the idea of a
non-empirical God is meaningless?
- What are the implications of seeing non-empirical matters as meaningless?
- What are the implications of discarding God?
6
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph D
This is a short paragraph and we can deal with this briefly.
Content Ayer is not concerned with the causes of religious feelings; only the
meaning of language.
Paraphrase
We are not concerned with the causes of religious feeling or the
likely future of religious faith. We are concerned only with religious knowledge,
establishing that there can be no transcendent truths of religion. The language is not
meaningful.
Context This short paragraph simply clarifies Ayer’s aims. He is interested in
religious language, rather than the history or future of religion. It links his criticism of
religious truth claims in the first three paragraphs to the rest of his discussion of
theism.
Argument / Interpretation
Consider:
- “Causes of religious feelings” – again this may tie to naturalistic accounts
of faith, such as those of Freud. Contrast Ayer with Freud, since Ayer is
only concern with language, not psychology. This makes a good tie with
atheism / unbelief (A2).
- “Possibility of religious knowledge” – i.e. all that Ayer cares about is how
religious language cannot be verified. This connects with the A2 topic of
religious language.
Key terms to deal with: Causes of religious feeling, transcendent truth.
Secondary Points
Ayer does not get involved in the discussion of the causes of religious feelings, but he
alludes to the fact that this debate is happening (see above).
Contribution
Ayer’s contribution has nothing to do with the explanation of religion, only with the
argument that it does not mean anything.
Evaluation – Part (b)
Consider:
- Is Ayer correct to ignore the causes of religious feelings? Surely, if
religious language is nonsense, Ayer should be able to explain why such
nonsensical language came to be used.
- Evaluate verification principle: “possibility of religious knowledge”.
- What are the implications of seeing religious language as meaningless?
7
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph E
Basic Content / Argument
Theists themselves also believe that they cannot describe God, which suggests that
the concept of God is not meaningful.
Plain English Paraphrase
Interestingly, the argument that talk of God is meaningless fits with some things
theists themselves say. The nature of God is transcendent and a mystery. However,
transcending human understanding amounts to the same thing as being unintelligible
(making no sense), and we couldn’t describe such a thing. It may be that God is
known through faith, without reason (perhaps because he cannot be proved). This
may mean that we cannot define God, and the idea of God cannot be fully known.
Theists would probably agree with this. But if we can’t define God, it’s impossible to
make meaningful statements about him. If the mystic admits that he cannot describe
what he experiences, then he is bound to talk nonsense.
Context
Having set out his main argument (in the first four paragraphs) that religious language
is meaningless, Ayer here attempts to show that his views connect with the claims of
theists (people who believe in God). He will then give further consideration to the
claims of mystics in the next paragraph.
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
- Theists believe that “God is a mystery which transcends human
understanding”. Which theists? This connects with two A2 topics:
religious experience and religious language. You should be able to explain
mysticism. You should also explain what non-literal accounts of religious
language (analogy, symbol) have to say about this.
- “What is unintelligible cannot be significantly described” – this takes us
back to A2 religious language and verification. Ayer decides what is
intelligible (or not) by applying the verification principle. Explain this and
the logical positivists. Consider alternate perspectives such as Hick or
Swinburne.
- The object of “purely mystical intuition” cannot be intelligible to reason.
This needs to be discussed in light of A2 religious experience. How have
some philosophers assessed mystical experiences? Might Swinburne have
something to say in defence of mystics, against Ayer?
Key terms you must consider: theists, ‘transcends the human understanding’,
‘mystical intuition’, ‘impossible to define God in intelligible terms’.
Secondary Points
The main thrust deals with the inability of theists to give meaningful description to
God. However, Ayer also touches upon:
- The question of whether God is known through reason or faith.
- Mysticism – a form of religious experience
8
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Contribution
Ayer is advancing a fairly bold and original argument, that theists themselves really
believe that God is meaningless. He justifies this by observing that theists readily
admit that God cannot be fully described.
Evaluation – Part (b)
Consider:
Is Ayer correct in his claim that God cannot be defined or described?
Are mystics really “bound to talk nonsense”?
Could we account for religious experience in any other way?
What would the implications be for ignoring religious experiences?
What are the implications of seeing God as indefinite, un-provable?
9
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph F
Basic Content / Argument
The claim of mystics to know of God through intuition is also groundless, since they
cannot test their claims through the senses or explain the knowledge which they
claim to have gained.
Plain English Paraphrase
The mystic may argue that he perceives truth through intuition and we don’t share
that insight, so we cannot say that there is no knowledge in what he has perceived
(‘cognitive faculty’ = ability to know something). But the mystic cannot give us
anything empirically verifiable (something we can check through the senses), so his
claims are unintelligible. Intuition has revealed no facts. It’s no good saying that the
mystic has facts about God but cannot express them, because if there were facts
then they could be explained. He could show how the facts about God could be
checked through the senses (‘empirically determined’). The fact that the mystic
cannot test what he ‘knows’ empirically (through senses) shows that he is not in a
position of knowledge (‘cognitive state’). So, the mystic gives no information about
our world, he just tells us what’s going on in his mind.
Context
Having discussed how common theistic attitudes connect with his argument about
meaning in religious language, Ayer now looks at mysticism specifically. The view that
God cannot be described suggests that God is unintelligible.
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
- Mystics claim to know through intuition. This ties directly to A2 religious
experience. You should be able to explain what mysticism is and consider
why Ayer views it as he does. Gives examples. Do they have no way of
expressing what they experience?
- Mysticism is not a “cognitive state”. This links with A2 religious language:
distinguish cognitive and non-cognitive language. Why does Ayer think
that mysticism is non-cognitive? Verification. Why might some theists
claim that mysticism is cognitive?
- A ‘real’ experience could be tested empirically – this is the verification
principle pure and simple.
- The mystic “merely gives us indirect information about the condition of
his own mind”. A2 religious experience. What other critics of religious
experience have said something similar? On what grounds might someone
dispute this? Tests for authenticity – Swinburne: how would these tests
contradict what Ayer is saying?
Key terms you must consider: mystic, intuition, cognitive faculty, intelligible
propositions, empirically determined.
Secondary Points
The thrust of Ayer’s argument rejects the idea of mystical experience, but he also
incidentally raises secondary issues:
10
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
-
Cognitivism / non-Cognitivism (this is a factor in ethics, as well as religion)
Reliability and validation of experiences
Psychology – “information about the issue of his own mind”. Are religious
experiences signs of delusion?
Contribution
Ayer here builds on his general dismissal or religion with a distinctive rejection of
personal and mystical intuition – it is nonsense.
Evaluation – Part (b)
Consider:
- Is mystical language necessarily non-cognitive?
- Does our inability to test what the mystic knows really matter? What else
can’t we test?
- Does a rejection of mysticism lead to a rejection of theism?
- What are the implications of dismissing religious and mystical experience?
- What are the implications of seeing knowledge as something which always
requires an empirical test?
11
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph G
Basic Content / Argument
We normally believe sense experiences (e.g. seeing a patch of yellow), so why not
believe religious experiences? Ayer claims that God is non-empirical, and so we
could not check this. We can always check up on yellow patches, however.
Plain English Paraphrase
The point made above (that talk of God is non-empirical) shows that the argument
from religious experience does not work, even though many philosophers still think
that it does. They think that it’s possible to perceive God directly with the senses
(e.g. ‘see’ him); there’s no reason to believe someone who claims to see a patch of
yellow with the senses and yet not believe someone who claims to see God. In
answer – if the man claiming to see God is just claiming to have some peculiar
sensation then there’s no need to deny that this is true. But usually, those having
religious experiences claim that it’s more than emotion – there is a transcendent
being (God) who is the object of that feeling. Similarly, those seeing yellow things
think that there are real yellow things rather than just odd sensations. It is not
irrational to believe a man perceiving yellow objects and yet refuse to believe
someone claiming the existence of a transcendent God. Claims that there are yellow
coloured things are “genuine synthetic propositions” (i.e. statements which really can
be tested for truth) and can be empirically verified (checked through the senses).
However, the claim that God exists has no literal significance, no real meaning.
Context
Ayer has argued that the concept of God is meaningless because it is non-empirical
(makes no reference to sense experience). Similarly, mystical experiences mean
nothing, because they cannot be tested with the senses. Here he argues that
religious experience as a whole can be discounted because it cannot be verified (by
contrast with simple everyday experiences).
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
- Is it “logically possible for men to be immediately acquainted with God”?
This links in with your A2 religious experience topic. Swinburne and
other would maintain that this is quite possible. However, note the
weakness of the ‘direct awareness’ argument – it’s not good enough to
say that ‘I just know’ that I’ve experienced God. Surely we need criteria
for determining the truth of religious experiences, as Swinburne suggests.
Is this or Ayer’s perspective more convincing?
- Are religious experiences really different from ‘normal’ experiences in
that they cannot be verified? This links our A2 topics of religious
experience and religious language together. This raises logical positivism
and the verification principle. Some would claim that religious experiences
can be in some ways verified, or at least aspects of religious experiences.
Look at attempts to check the authenticity of religious experiences (RC
Church, Swinburne). This also links to the problem of ‘disanalogies’
between religious and normal sense experiences (J.L. Mackie); note that
12
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
-
Alston is not convinced that religious experiences really are different
from all of our other experiences.
“… genuine synthetic proposition which could be empirically verified” –
but what do we mean by “empirically verified”? Links to A2 topic religious
language and verification. But does the verification principle really prove
that things exist, or just that they are perceived by many people? Ayer had
to distinguish between the strong and weak principles because he realised
that hardly anything can be really verified in the strict sense. What about
events such as Our Lady of Fatima (links to A2 religious experience),
when thousands of witnesses claimed to have seen the same peculiar
solar activity?
Key terms you must deal with: ‘argument from religious experience’,
‘immediately acquainted with God’, transcendent being, empirically
verified, ‘no literal significance’.
Secondary Points
Ayer’s main point is an attack on religious experience, but he raises other issues:
- When should we / should we not believe a person?
- Are there general differences between ‘normal’ and ‘religious’
experiences?
Contribution
Here Ayer adds fuel to the fire of the religious experience debate by being very
negative about any possibility of religious experiences. He puts forward a bold idea:
it is always irrational to believe someone who is making claims which could never be
tested?
Evaluation
Consider:
- Are religious experiences really in another category to normal
experiences? Is Ayer being completely honest here?
- Can we test religious experiences?
- What does verification really mean?
- What are the implications of following the verification principle strictly?
Can we do it?
- What are the implications of ignoring religious experience?
- What are the implications of not believing people who cannot offer us
empirically verifiable propositions?
- What would the world be like if we were all verificationists?
13
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
Paragraph H
Basic Content / Argument
There is nothing to the argument from religious experience. Claims to religious or
moral knowledge don’t amount to anything, because they cannot be checked by the
senses. This is only interesting in terms of what it says about a person’s psychology.
Plain English Paraphrase
We conclude that the argument from religious experience is flawed / false
(fallacious). It is interesting that people have these experiences from a psychological
point of view, but that doesn’t mean that there is such a thing as religious
knowledge. Neither do experiences of morals show that there is such a thing as
moral knowledge (i.e. knowledge of what is right and wrong). The theist thinks his
experiences are cognitive (contain knowledge) but is deceiving himself, because he
cannot prove it with his senses (empirically verify). Philosophers who think that they
‘know’ something about religion or morals are just expressing feelings that would
interest a psychoanalyst. No intuition (direct perception) can reveal truth unless in
statements which can be checked (verified). All claims which can be checked with
the senses can be incorporated into science – a system for knowing things.
Context
Ayer concludes this essay with a firm rejection of religious experience and, indeed,
all religious and moral knowledge. This builds on his general argument that nonempirical and unverifiable claims are meaningless.
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
- Argument from religious experience is false / flawed. But is it? This
connects with A2 topic religious experience. What counter-arguments
are there to what Ayer is saying? He thinks it’s flawed because of the
verification principle – see A2 religious language. Explain this and the
logical positivists.
- Religious experiences are interesting from a psychological point of view.
Which psychologists have taken an interest? A2 religious experience.
Have psychologists arrived at similar or different conclusions to Ayer?
- Religious claims are non-cognitive. This links to A2 religious language.
Consider verification. Is this true? What are the key strengths and
weaknesses of this approach to language?
- Meaningful language has to work in a scientific system. Is that true?
Consider language games and Wittgenstein in A2 rel. language.
Key terms you must consider: ‘psychological point of view’, religious
knowledge, moral knowledge, empirically verifiable, ‘system … which
constitutes science’.
Secondary Points
Ayer concludes by the whole idea of religious experience or knowledge, but he also
touches upon secondary points:
- What religion tells us from a psychological point of view.
14
A.J. Ayer – ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense
-
The possibility (or lack!) of moral knowledge.
The link between language and science.
Contribution
Ayer’s final paragraph contributes a remarkable and controversial argument: there
could never be such a thing as religious knowledge or moral knowledge (note that
addition). Meaningful language has to be incorporated into a system of science.
Evaluation
Consider:
- Must religious language be meaningless? Must the argument fail?
- Is there no such thing as moral knowledge either? Are there any
problems associated with this view?
- What are the implications of seeing language as purely scientific?
- Does psychology agree with what Ayer claims here?
- What are the implications of Ayer’s radical conclusion?
- What are the implications of eliminating religious or moral truth claims?
- What are the implication of seeing language as just a matter of science?
15