So with religion — there might be conventional or unconventional ways to talk about God. Some would claim that religious experiences can be in some ways verified, or at least aspects of religious experiences. Bliks are not necessarily untrue some are sane and some insane , but they are groundless. The debate is ages old. He puts forward a bold idea: An analogy which is just a metaphor and does not really deal with proportionate qualities would be one of improper proportion.
A.J Ayers ‘God- talk is evidently nonsense’ Essay
To understand this theory, though, we must realise that it works within theism. If God is just a mystery, then we are not using language in a constructive, meaningful way.
Here, Ayer must have in mind his verification principle — the statement could not be demonstrated either analytically or synthetically. What counter-arguments are there to what Ayer is saying? The first of these attribution is dead easy.
So, we would be justified in drawing analogies between the world and God. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Similarly, those seeing yellow things think that there are real yellow things rather than just odd sensations. Secondary Points Ayer concludes by the whole i of religious experience or knowledge, but he also touches upon secondary points: Evaluation — Part b Address the following issues: The view that God cannot be described suggests that God is unintelligible.
It may be that God is known through faith, without reason perhaps because he cannot be proved.
`God-talk is evidently nonsense` – A
In his Philosophical Investigations published after his deathWittgenstein focused on the uses language can be put to. How have some philosophers assessed mystical experiences? Auth with social network: This may mean that we cannot define God, and the idea of God cannot be fully known. Can you give examples?
Perhaps also consider falsification Anthony Flew. But this is not possible.
Yet, the opposite point has also long been recognised: However, Ayer also touches upon: Similarly, mystical experiences mean nothing, because they cannot be tested with the senses.
On what grounds might someone dispute this? Instead of checking every bit of knowledge with our logic or senses, he suggested that we might know things by setting up sensible standards for evidence — eye-witness accounts, multiple sources, etc.
This connects with A2 religious language topic. Thomas Aquinas AD Italian priest, philosopher. We might wonder whether the evil in our world is also an analogy to God — this might make a perfectly good God impossible.
Religious Language. – ppt download
Ayer allows that this kind of nature worship might mean something but points out that modern believers have tried to go beyond it. Yet, that would be useless without them being familiar with the work itself. We could also criticise analogy from the standpoint of verification, since the object we are drawing an analogy to God cannot be verified. Richard Swinburne criticises Aquinas for producing an unnecessary theory.
See Hamilton ff. What are the implications of dismissing metaphysical claims? He then went on to say that problems in philosophy may occur through misunderstanding that words can be used in different language games.
Why might some theists claim that mysticism is cognitive? You should be able to explain mysticism.