Verification and Falsification Debates Flashcards
1
Q
cognitive
A
language based on empirical observation
2
Q
non-cognitive
A
language based on interpretation
3
Q
A.J Ayer verification principle
A
- strong verification principle initially argued that any statements which cannot be analytically verified is meaningless
- ayer then adapted due to history would of been meaningless:
strong statements-> proved w/ evidence
weak statements -> could theoretically be proved
4
Q
criticisms of ayer verification principle
A
- humans are flawed: so empirical evidence cannot be trusted
- too restrictive: dismisses moral and historical statements as meaningless
- ignores religious experience, which is where individuals claim to experience god
5
Q
strengths of ayer verification principle
A
- clear criteria of meaning: helps distinguish between meaningful and meaningless language
- science-aligned: matches scientific teachings, matching understanding in observable cases
- prevents speculation: prevents unverifiable claims beings speculated
6
Q
antony flew flasification principle
A
- claimed religious language is not verifiable even in principle
- parable of the gardener: one believes in a gardener, one doesn’t, the sceptic explorer doesn’t believe in the garden as there are weeds, but the believing garden chooses to ignore it
- through this analogy, flew argues there is evidence to disprove god, but they would not change their minds
- flew despairs that believers “shift the goalposts” and “die a death a thousand qualifications”, when facing contradictions such as the problem of evil
7
Q
strengths of antony flew falsification debates
A
- logical riror: forces religious claims to have empirical evidence
-exposes weak arguments - clarifies belief
8
Q
criticisms of anthonly flew falsification debates
A
- misunderstands faith
- simplifies religious language: they are symbolic, not literal claims
- ignores cumulative evidence: fails to consider how a mix of experiences, claims and history may support belief
9
Q
Basil Mitchell’s Realist Response
A
- mitchell argued that religious claims are cognitively meaningful and should be treated as realist statements
- critiqued flew’s idea that believers irrationally avoid falsification, suggesting that religious faith involves trust rather than blind refusal to face evidence
10
Q
Basil Mitchell - parable of the partisan and the stranger
A
- partisan (believer) meets a stranger (god), who claims to lead the resistance (be good)
- the partisan sees the stranger acting suspiciously (problem of evil), but chooses to trust the stranger based on initial encounter (religious experience)
11
Q
summary of Mitchell’s views
A
- religious language is meaningful, even if not conclusively falsifiable
- belief is tested by experience, but faith can ensure tension between evidence and trust
- provides a middle ground: religious belief is not like a blik (purely subjective) but also not empirically simplistic
12
Q
strengths of logical positivism/falsification
A
- depands a clear criteria for meaningful statements
- helps avoid irrational/superstitious thinking
13
Q
weaknesses of logical positivism/falsification
A
- too narrow
- self-refuting
14
Q
R.M Hare - ‘Bliks’
A
- non falsifiable but psychologically significant worldviews
- eg) a paranoid man may irrationally believe people want to hurt him, with no evidence to support this
- hare argued religious language expresses believers interpretive frameworks rather than factual claims
15
Q
responses to hare ‘bliks’
A
- mitchell argues that it treats religious beliefs as non cognitive (not about facts) which could lead to subjective interpretations
- hick said it undermines religious debate
- flew said it fails to capture religious commitment
16
Q
categories of statements - analytic
A
statements which contain meaning and evidence within themselves
17
Q
categories of statements - synthetic
A
statements which do not contain meaning and evidence within themselves, but are related
18
Q
categories of statements - contingent
A
- statements which could be true/false depending on the context
19
Q
anti realism (non-cognitivsm)
A
- believes morality isn’t a set of facts and isn’t capable of being true/false
- we should be skeptical of having the ability to understand true nature of objective reality, eg it would be right to say ‘god exists’ within religion
20
Q
realist (cognitivst)
A
- believes morality is a set of facts capable of being true/false
- ‘god exists’ is an objective factual statement expressed univocally
21
Q
escathalogical verification
A
- idea that certain ideas, such as existence of the afterlife will be verified following death
- hick argues this was true of christians
22
Q
hare response to flew falsification principle
A
- r.m hare challenged flews ideas about analogy about a madman who believes all dons want to kill him, he argues that while the dons may not want to kill him, he believes its true
