A J Ayer- God talk is evidently nonsense
Examine the argument in the passage. (30)
In A J Ayer's article 'God talk is evidently nonsense' he breaks down the religious argument that God's existence can be proved and how it is improbable to dispute his existence entirely.
Ayer's argument leads to the conclusion that religious experiences being evidence for God's existence is logically unsound - "the argument from religious experience is altogether fallacious." He argues that claiming to have a religious experience is not evidence of religious knowledge; no more than claiming to have a moral experience is evidence of moral knowledge. In this sense if someone claims to experience 'x' this does not guarantee that 'x' is true - it simply indicates a probable reality of 'x'; this argument indicates that experience of God simply indicates the probable reality of such a God. Therefore despite claiming to have experienced God, it is not evidence of God but simply a probable reality that God may exist.
In John Hick's book 'The existence of God' (1977) he states - "any special event or experience which can be constituted ad manifesting the divine can also be constituted in other ways and accordingly cannot carry the weight of proof of Gods existence." Hicks argument states that an event that may be deemed 'religious' can also be deemed as profane, therefore it cannot be proof of God's existence.
Ayer goes on to say that a religious believer may claim his experiences are intellectual but unless his knowledge can be explained with empirical evidence he is simply lying to himself. Throughout the article Ayer uses the 'empirical evidence' argument, stating that nothing is true unless proved by one of the five senses. This argument links with that of David Hume; Hume suggests...