The whole idea of non-empirical qualities is discarded as nonsense. It is not just a sign. He takes a very firm approach, based on the verification principle. See Hamilton ff. Paraphrase We are not concerned with the causes of religious feeling or the likely future of religious faith. Is this really nonsense?
He will then give further consideration to the claims of mystics in the next paragraph. For religious language, he thought that function might be more important than meaning. This is the case with the ontological argument for God A2 topic ; God is the greatest thing we can conceive, rather than experience. Which psychologists have taken an interest? Tillich goes on to number four key features of symbols:
Bliks are not necessarily untrue some are sane and some insanebut they are groundless.
Key terms you must deal with: Critics of religion might emphasise the Non-Cognitive nature hod much religious language. To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. If I say that College work is fun, I am also saying that College work is not, not fun. Richard Swinburne argues that there are propositions which no-one knows how to verify but still are not meaningless.
Perhaps it makes sense to ask whether God exists. There is more detail you could learn on this. The view that God cannot be described suggests that God is unintelligible. Contribution Here Ayer attacks a key basis of theism — the idea that God could exist despite not being directly observable.
Download ppt “Religious Language. To explain c ja dTillich compared this symbolic language to a great work of art …. He focused on the manner in which symbols may effect humans. A blik is a non-rational belief which could never be falsified disproved.
Is there really a big difference from signs here? Add to collection s Add to saved. Context Having discussed how common theistic attitudes a with his argument about meaning in religious language, Ayer now looks at mysticism specifically. About project SlidePlayer Terms of Service. Perhaps a lot of what we take for knowledge defies strict verification.
For Aquinas, such comparisons were needed for all talk of God. Here, Ayer demonstrates the implications of his view for atheism and agnosticism.
A.J Ayers ‘God- talk is evidently nonsense’ Essay – Document in A Level and IB Religious Studies
To understand this theory, though, we must realise that it works within theism. The Verification Nojsense might contradict itself. He has abilities beyond our observation super-empirical attributes.
Can you give examples? This links to A2 religious language.
Is the Verification Principle meaningless? Is it impossible for God to be fully known defined through empirical manifestations? The health ak the animal is present in its urine; we can tell that the bull is healthy evidentlj studying this. What about events such as Our Lady of Fatima links to A2 religious experiencewhen thousands of witnesses claimed to have seen the same peculiar solar activity? This connects with the design argument from AS.
Any claim made about God including Atheistic. Contribution Here Ayer makes a major contribution to the debate surrounding religious language. Tapk is interested in religious language, rather than the history or future of religion.
Yet, it is also a prompt from prayer, worship, and meditation. What would the implications be for ignoring religious experiences?