Religious language - falsification Flashcards
What was Karl Popper’s falsification principle?
Scientists must be able to state what evidence they would use to falsify a scientific assertion. If they could not, then it was a non assertion i.e. not a statement of fact.
How does Flew apply Popper’s principle?
Flew agreed with Popper. He concludes that all religious statements are non assertions. They are not cognitive - he does not use the term meaningful.
What is the beginning of Flew’s parable?
Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.”
How do the explorers check for a gardener?
They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never cry.
How does the Believer respond to the lack of evidence of the Gardener?
“But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly took after the garden which he loves.”
How does the Sceptic respond to the Believers assertion of the gardener?
At last the Sceptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”
How does Flew apply Popper’s principle?
Flew agreed with Popper. He concludes that all religious statements are non assertions. They are not cognitive - he does not use the term meaningful.
What is the difference between Flew and Wisdom’s parable?
Flew has a lot more weeds in his parable than Wisdom and his explorers come across a jungle clearing not a garden.
What does Flew’s parable suggest about qualifying
Religious believers will not allow any empirical evidence to falsify their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence. They continue to qualify their belief in the face of opposing evidence. Flew says this is death by a thousand qualifications.
Give Flew’s example of death by a thousand qualifications.
But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is made - God’s love is “not merely human love” or it is “an inscrutable love,” perhaps - and we realise that such suffering is quite compatible with the truth of the assertion that “God loves us as a father”. We are reassured again.
What does Flew’s parable say about falsification?
The religious believer is unable to tell you what empirical evidence could falsify their belief in God.
What are the strengths of Flew?
There is a lot of evidence to support him concerning the way that believers respond to challenges e.g. the Theodicies, claiming that God’s love is different to ours.
What is the weakness of Flew?
A weakness is that believers would argue that God isn’t part of the empirical world and therefore there isn’t, and can’t be empirical evidence to falsify his existence. Flew misses the point with believers as their belief is based on faith rather than empirical evidence
What does Robert Prevost say about religious beliefs?
They are based on trust, this trust should hold no matter what temptations confront the believer. While Prevost allows for the possibility that this trust could be undermined, he argues that it is rational to believe that it will not be, and that time will vindicate it.
Give Hare’s parable.
A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons are out to murder him. The student remains convinced even when dons are nice to him. When this happens, he thinks that the dons are being devious and hypocritical, showing the need to be on his guard.
Explain Hare’s parable.
Religious language is meaningful to the believer. We hold to beliefs despite undermining/falsifying evidence. These beliefs were termed Bliks. Bliks are meaningful because they influence the person’s attitude and the way they live their life. Religious statements are non cognitive yet meaningful
What are the strengths of Hare?
He allows non-cognitive statements to be meaningful and the importance of such statements is recognised
What are the weaknesses of Hare?
He is likening believers to lunatics. In his parable there is negative influence on their lives where as a believer may argue that the influence is positive in reality. It is not a good analogy for a believer.
He says that it is meaningful to be non cognitive whereas a religious believer would say that there is some empirical evidence to support their beliefs.
In Mitchell’s parable, what is the relationship between the stranger and the fighter?
In an occupied country during a war, a resistance fighter meets a mysterious stranger and spends a night in earnest conversation. The stranger tells the fighter to trust that he is on the side of the resistance, even if at times he might be seen helping the enemy.
In Mitchell’s parable, what happens to the fighter?
The fighter’s faith in the stranger is constantly tested. Despite being tempted to lose faith in the stranger, as he sometimes sees him appearing to help the enemy and sometimes not, the fighter always says to himself “The stranger knows best”. It is impossible to tell at what the point the fighter might lose faith in the stranger.
What is Mitchell saying about our experience?
There is nothing decisive in our experience to undermine religious faith but in principle this could happen. So in theory a religious statement could be falsified e.g. sometime in the future, decisive evidence could turn up to prove God exists is wrong.
What does Mitchell say about belief?
It is based upon faith, not empirical evidence and so Flew misses the point.
What does Mitchell conclude?
As there could be enough empirical evidence to undermine religious belief, Mitchell is arguing that religious language is cognitive and meaningful. However, when he says that it is faith that matters, this is non cognitive and meaningful as it is not based on empirical evidence but faith.
What are the strengths of Mitchell?
In incorporates both cognitive and non cognitive, this is good because this is the way that religious statements are. They are often non cognitive, on the other hand there are some philosophical arguments that uses cognitive evidence as well.
Another strength is that some religious believers do have their views falsified.
