Assess Flews view on religious language/ assess the falsification symposium
8 views 0 purchase
Course
G581 - A2 Philosophy of Religion
Institution
OCR
A well explained evaluative essay in the falsification principle I have critically explained every point and hope it is useful I received 33/40 marks which is an A*
Assess Flew's views on religious language 'Hare's account of religious language is correct' - Discuss.
Which was the most convincing point of view in the falsification symposium? Assess Mitchell's
contribution to the falsification symposium
The falsification symposium was put forward by Karl Popper who believed he could capture
empiricism better than verificationism could. This was influenced by Anthony Flew who applied
falsificationism to religious language. He claimed that religious belief is unfalsifiable because
believers can't say what could prove their belief false. This is heavily criticized by Mitchell and Hare
who did not agree with the characterisation of religious belief as irrationally blind to any evidence
which goes against it. This essay will find that Hare presents the best approach to religious language
through his ideology of the Blix which present a convincing argument to religious language.
The falsification principle was put forward by Flew he concluded that statements are meaningless if it
can not be falsified and as a result he pointed out that religious statements cannot be proved true or
false because religious believers don't accept any evidence against their belief. Flew argued that
Christians hold to their unchangeable belief that God is good and as a result the believers give
reasons why God remains good despite the cruel situation or oppositions they may face stating that
religious statements "dies the death of a 1000 qualifications" religious believers have cognitive
dissonance and will do anything do def3end their religious beliefs . Flew stated these constant
qualifications render religious statements meaningless as they result in the believers original
statement being lost and thus being meaningless. He uses John Wisdom's Parable of the Gardener to
support his argument. The first man who believes there had been a gardener believes there is a God
whereas the man who believed there had been no gardener doesn't believe in God. However like
religious believers the first man attempts to qualify the gardener's absence making him meaningless.
However critics of the falsification principle such as Richard Swinburne argue that religious
statements are non cognitive, and there are statements we cannot falsify but we have the ability to
understand the meaning behind the statement. Even though we cannot falsify the facts of a gardener
we can still understand the ideas of there being a gardener. Similarly even though we haven't seen
God we have the knowledge to believe God does exist Therefore the statements are meaningful as
we know how to falsify them St Paul claimed that if Jesus' body were discovered then belief and faith
in Christianity would be pointless. This suggests Flew is incorrect to think religious language is always
unfalsifiable as there are at least some believers whose belief is incompatible with some logically
possible state of affairs. That would show that Paul's religious language would pass Flew's test of
falsification and so would be meaningful.
Basil Mitchell argued against flews conclusions with the parable of the partisan. Mitchell is not happy
with Flew's characterisation of religious belief as irrationally blind to any evidence which goes against
it. Mitchell argued that rather than need to say what would prove them wrong, religious belief can
be said to be connected to empirical reality if it allows empirical evidence to count against it, like the
problem of evil. Mitchell imagines the example of a soldier fighting for the resistance against the
government in a civil war. One day someone comes to them and claims to be the leader of the
resistance, on their side, but a double agent pretending to be on the other side. The soldier decides
to have faith in this person, even when they see them fighting for the government. This is analogous
to faith in God, despite the counter evidence of the problem of evil. Mitchell's point is that religious
people do allow empirical evidence to count against their belief, they simply judge overall to retain
faith. Their belief is connected to empirical reality as a consequence however, and can therefore be
said to be cognitively meaningful according to Mitchell. Arguably Mitchell's criteria for falsifiability
are insufficient. Merely allowing evidence to count against your belief doesn't make it falsifiable.
Only being able to say what would prove it wrong, not merely count against it, makes something
falsifiable. Explaining what evidence runs against your belief is not sufficient to explain what
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller zarahbzahid. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.95. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
