The Falsification Symposium - LG2 Flashcards
INTRO - define
Falsification - The principle that a statement is a genuine scientific assertion if it is possible to say how it can be disproved empirically
Section one: theme
The Falsification principle
Section one: AO1
THE FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE
(Flew)
Falsification makes a hypothesis such as “all swans are white” and then tries to prove this wrong. If a non-black swan is seen then the statement “all swans are white” can be refuted. However religious believers are allowing their definition of God to ‘die death of a thousand qualifications’ as they can’t obtain God’s nature when the problem of evil exists. They can’t accept that God might not be benevolent and therefore the assertion ‘God is loving’ is meaningless as it cannot be falsified.
Section one: A02 FOR
THE FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE
However, some religious believers have altered their belief to say that God is still creator because he started the universe through the Big Bang.
Swinburne still qualifying belief that Gods nature cannot be falsified so how can anyone ever disprove/prove Gods existence.
Section one: A02 AGAINST
THE FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE
Mitchell - religious believers do change their theory about the world in the face of new evidence. For example, when the Big Bang was discovered, it appeared to disprove the statement ‘God is creator’.
Swinburne: it is impossible to verify God’s nature as God is a necessary perfect being whilst humans are contingent and fallible
-Strong as too much of an epistemic distance to ever falsify
Section 2: theme
Mitchell
Section 2: AO1
MITCHELL
Parable of the Partisan: Stranger meets Partisan, and Partisan says on stranger’s side. However sceptical as Partisan fights for other side. Must have faith and trust Partisan.
Analogous to God as religious believers do count problem of evil against God but choose to retain faith. Belief still connected by an empirical reality hence meaningful.
Section 2: AO2 FOR
MITCHELL
Swinburne - uses example of Toys in cupboard coming alive to argue we don’t know enough about God’s nature to falsify it
-Arrogance as we cannot possibly fathom a perfect being
while the direct nature of God cannot be falsified the nature of religion can be e.g. ‘Religion creates a community’ is an assertion that can be falsified and therefore an aspect of religious language has meaning
God is greater than science therefore can not be confined to scientific falsification
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
MITCHELL
Circular saying that power on faith based on evidence is stronger than any counter evidence
- Belief in God still remains perfect and thus belief in God can still not be falsified which renders it meaningless
John Wisdom Parable
Two explorers discover land that resembles garden and disagree on existence of gardener
No other evidence qualifies claim ‘only comes out at night, invisible, undetectable’
How does this differ from non-existent gardener?
Dawkins – the world would be the same without a God. Lack of empiricism to accept that God could be non-existent demonstrates how the world would be the same without a God
Section 2: Conclusion
MITCHELL
However still cyclical as God itself cannot be falsified only the communities of religious belief. (Move onto Hare and how Religion is non-cognitive so does not extend to the falsification principles)
Section 3: theme
Hare
Section 3: AO1
HARE
Whilst the Falsification principle can be applied to cognitive statements (it is good at this) it is a mistake to apply to non-cognitive. RM Hare asserts that Beliefs that are non-cognitive our foundational beliefs - bliks – which cannot be falsified/verified as have no empirical value and shape other existing beliefs. This extends to religion.
Example of student believing all dons were murders, even met nice dons and yet was still convinced that they were going to murder him
No matter how unrealistic they may seem to an outsider’s perspective, they are meaningful to the person.
What is more likely is a ‘sane’ Blik – likely our sense are reliable
Unlikely ‘insane’ Blik
So, FP does not have any jurisdiction to critic it as RL is a sane ‘Blik’ and non-cognitive
Section 3: AO2 FOR
HARE
General premise of bliks sounds logical we all seem to have beliefs in things i.e. superstitions that we claim to be true no matter the amount of empirical evidence to disprove it
God being a sane ‘blik’ is likely when one considers the purpose and design of the world (Aquinas Teleological) This gives more evidence that there is a God and a creator as its harder to perhaps argue that the natural order of the world came about by chance
Section 3: AO2 AGAINST
HARE
Flew: rejected the idea because believers see statements about God as cognitive rather than non-cognitive – what is the point otherwise
-unless they are factual assertions they amount to ‘dialectical dud-cheques’ something that has no cash value and is pointless
-their assertions are non-falsifiable and thus meaningless.
