Edexcel Unit 4 Implications - Philosophy - Ayer

Thanks, that's great :smile:

Reply 63

Amzzzz

Thank you Waterish...i really appreciate that :smile:

If there is anything I can do at all, please ask and il do my best.

Reply 64

a and b, rel lang sysnoptic para 3.doc31.7KB

jkyng1

thanks for everyone's input. does anyone have a model answer for Ayer?

hey, ive attched the answer i done for Ayer - its from the paragraph on page 112 starting 'An interesting feature.... when he describes it'.

It got 22/24 for part a and 14/16 for part b. hope it helps

xx

Reply 65

Waterish

Heres my summary of what i think could be referenced in each paragraph. You probably won't be expected to know them all, so just try to remember as many as you can i guess. They'll spring to mind in the exam anyway, i'm sure.

Take each paragraph separately, so certain points come up multiple times in my list.

Paragraph 1:

•

Why we can't demonstratively prove God, so Hume and Kant's criticisms of the classical arguments for God's existence (Ontological, Design and Cosmological). I'd only worry about 1 criticism for each, just mention them in passing

•

Why existence of God isn't provable (according to Ayer): Vertification Principle (strong and weak forms)

•

Regularity in nature is not God, so reference Kant here (see above)

•

Metaphysical is no good - some may argue Anti-Realism says otherwise

Paragraph 2:

•

Atheism/Agnosticism = no good - reference Hume's criticism of the Ontological argument (can't reason something into existence or non-existence

•

Anselm's Fool - can understand God, so gives it meaning. Also Anti-Realsim can be mentioned here too

•

Ideas of the Verification Principle

Paragraph 3:

•

Language games - words mean certain things for certain religious groups

•

Aquinas - have to talk of God analogically (at the end of the paragraph)

•

Myth & symbol

•

Kant's idea of God being external to the world

•

Anti-Realism & Anselm's Fool (at the end of the paragraph)

Paragraph 4:

•

Dawkins' Memes (i guess)

Paragraph 5:

•

Christian doctrine - the Trinity is external & a mystery, not literal

•

Ideas of religious experience

Paragraph 6:

•

Logical Positivists - need empirical proof

•

Examples of mystics & what they say - Julian of Norwich, for example. Describing the experiences in ordinary language would take away their meaning. Ayer - they're meaningless anyway

•

Wittgenstein, Vicious Circle, etc

•

Ayer suggests something that is not understandable contains no facts

Paragraph 7:

•

Verification Principle

•

Falsification Principle

•

Affect on society = negative: 9/11

•

Affect on society = positive: Martin Luther King

Paragraph 8:

•

Freud

•

Moral knowledge - Intuitionism, Naturalism, Aquinas

•

Reference Donovan's article & H.P. Owen - ideas over what role intuition plays

•

Science - Dawkins

•

Russell - "there is no difference between the man who drinks much and sees snakes and the man who eats little and sees God"

Just my ideas anyway.

Reply 66

Amzzzz

Ok…a limited analysis of Ayer…it was too long/complicated to do it section by section…so this is general support and criticisms that can be applied throughout:

Support:

-To say that something is transcendent is to admit that it is beyond your understanding, so how can you have experience of it? How can you even attempt to describe it accurately if you have no idea what the beyond entails?
-Falsification – development of verif.
-Just because there is regularity in nature doesn’t conclusively postulate God’s existence – too big a leap – illogical – David Hume (Cosmo+Teleo criticisms).
-when he says ‘the mere existence of the noun is enough to foster the illusion that there is a real…’ could bring in Freud= ‘universal neurosis’ and Marx, Dawkins= ‘delusion’ etc.
-Russell – universe is a BRUTE FACT and nothing more.

Criticisms:

-Swinburne says it is probable: more arguments for than against…and we should believe what people say unless there is evidence to contrary (Principles of Credulity and Testimony).
-Descartes famously dismissed his senses as unreliable as they can deceive you (use examples of illusions/mirages etc).
-As an empiricist, Ayer ignores a priori arguments such as the Ont. Arg.
-Hick – eschatological verification (Celestial City parable…thanks Gary &#61514 :wink:

-VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE ITSELF CANNOT BE VERIFED…ALL AYER’S WORK IS FLAWED.
-Ayer himself said at a later date that most of his early work was false.
-(If you have explained about his weak verification) – this allows for some religious statements to be considered meaningful because they are historical e.g: Jesus rose from the dead.
-Ayer ignores religious experiences that are not ineffable, only focusing on discrediting those that cannot be explained (mystics)
-Even if it is meaningless to him, religious language, or ‘God-talk’ is meaningful to a massive proportion of the population (and has been for centuries).
-Swinburne/Basil Mitchell/R.M.Hare/Tillich/Aquinas…all say religious language is meaningful even if it doesn’t convey knowledge…THEREFORE it is not nonsense (the title), just not a cognitive fact…but it still has a purpose/meaning.
-Religious experiences are NOETIC (William James) that is they impart knowledge that it beyond human understanding – just because something cannot be verbalised doesn’t mean it is meaningless…it just exposes the limits and inadequacies of human language.
-You can have/feel emotions that you can’t describe – they still exist and are true.
-REDUCTIONISM - concept argued by many 20th century philosophers who felt that religious ideas were in need of reinterpretation and that religious language should not be seen as being about the 'transcendant' or 'metaphysical' as it is really about life and the things that we all experience. Therefore rel.lang is no longer seen as a problem because it is about our own psychology and sociology, not a transcendant being. BUT this undermines the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God of classical theism...hmmmm...
-Braithwaite argued religious language is really moral discourse...BUT Ayer and verification reject moral discourse so thats blown too...hmmm...
-Final sentence 'and all such...constitutes science'...well no actually - Popper highlighted fact that science deals in falsification not verification.

Please other people add to this!!

And thanks everyone for your contributions this is brilliant.

Reply 67

I love you all! :smile:

Reply 68

rel exp page 1!.JPG124.1KB

This is the exam boards model to religious experience.

x

rel exp page 2!.JPG114.7KB

rel exp page 3!.JPG101.4KB

Reply 69

And I don't know whether any of you know, but Richard Swinburne wrote an article in direct response to Ayer's called 'God-talk is not evidently nonsense'. It's in Philosophy of Religion: a guide and anthology (Davies) if any of you have access to it.

Reply 70

Amzzzz

Biscuit90....THANK YOU! :smile:

And yeah limey, actually i have that article here with my stuff but i havent looked at t properly.
Have you been through it? Is it worth analysing?

Unfortunatley i dont have a scanner so i cant post it, but i could see if i can put up the main points if ppl want?

Reply 71

Waterish

Biscuit90

This is the exam boards model to religious experience.

x

One thing: the idea of God not having a beginning or and end is non-contingency, not ontological. The Ontological argument just tries to prove that God is exists using reason, not empirical proof.

Reply 72

o kl, thanks :smile:

xx

Reply 73

Lu-x

16

Biscuit90

hey, ive attched the answer i done for Ayer - its from the paragraph on page 112 starting 'An interesting feature.... when he describes it'.

It got 22/24 for part a and 14/16 for part b. hope it helps

xx

I've noticed something about your part (a). You seem to be criticizing Ayer here, but you are only supposed to clarify the argument. Leave the criticisms to part (b).

Reply 74

Amzzzz

Biscuit90....THANK YOU! :smile:

And yeah limey, actually i have that article here with my stuff but i havent looked at t properly.
Have you been through it? Is it worth analysing?

Unfortunatley i dont have a scanner so i cant post it, but i could see if i can put up the main points if ppl want?

I haven't looked at it properly either, so I couldn't tell you. From scanning over it briefly, it seems to tear apart strong verification, falsification and then weak verification, one by one.

Reply 75

Aciassa

I've noticed something about your part (a). You seem to be criticizing Ayer here, but you are only supposed to clarify the argument. Leave the criticisms to part (b).

The Donovan article model essay seems to put criticisms in A, just to confuse the issue!

Reply 76

Lu-x

16

Limey.

The Donovan article model essay seems to put criticisms in A, just to confuse the issue!

Of course it talks about criticisms of religious experience, since Donovan himself does! It still is clarifying what Donovan is saying. It is not criticizing Donovan's criticisms (eh? :p:

) about religious experience until part (b).

Reply 77

Waterish

Don't worry, you CAN put some criticisms/strengths in part a). But i wouldnt, cos it means you can't put them in part b) or youd be repeating yourself :P Also, it wastes time that could be spent clarifying the argument.

Reply 78

Aciassa

Of course it talks about criticisms of religious experience, since Donovan himself does! It still is clarifying what Donovan is saying. It is not criticizing Donovan's criticisms (eh? :p:

) about religious experience until part (b).

Haha. Ok. Shows how well I know that article :tongue:

I really really hope Ayer comes up.

Reply 79