4.2 verification and falsification debates Flashcards
What is meant by logical positivism?
- the logical positivists developed from the Vienna circle (a group of philosophers led by Moritz Schlick)
- argued that the only statements that have meaning are those which: are logically true OR can be verified empirically
What is the verification principle?
the meaning of a proposition depends on how it is verified
What does Ayer contribute to the verification principle?
‘There exists a transcendant God’ has no literal significance as there are no empirical observations that can show religious propositions to be true/false
- the meaningless nature of assertions about God’s existence don’t only apply to positive statements - any discussion surrounding philosophy of religion and the existence of God is meaningless
Criticisms of the verification principle:
- the principle itself cannot be verified
- some statements don’t need to be proved because they are self-evidential
- it’s inadequate because it allows all statements to be classed as meaningful
What is meant by the falsification principle?
proposed by Karl Popper - theories are consindered to be true until they are proven wrong, until they are falsified
What does Anthony Flew wish to challenge theists about?
- to admit that there is evidence that exists that points towards the disproving of God’s existence; or religion is meaningful BUT falsified
- admit that there is no evidence that exists that could alter their state of belief - religion is unable to be proved false to the believer, yet in his view its completely meaningless
What does R.M Hare say about the falsification principle?
bliks are part of our everyday experience and affects the way in which we navigate the world (they are unfalsifiable)
- a person without a blik about God’s existence will not naturally regard talk of God as an explanation for things in the world
What does Basil Mitchell add to the falsification principle?
religious language should be understood as significant articles of faith
- faith means that one holds a significant belief despite competing evidence
What does Flew suggest about religious language?
there is no reality behind it