Falsfication Principle

Question 1

Basic analogy behind it (Karl popper)

Answer 1

For a theory to be falsifiable there must be a way to test it and possibly prove it false.

The greatest knowledge is gained by disproving things, as it gives you a definitive ‘no’ which leads to new knowledge being born.
E.g. people used to think that the earth was flat, however ships never fell of the earth no matter where they travelled to. Therefore, proving that statement to be false which indicated a new paradigm shift (shift in knowledge) as now people believe that the earth is curved. This is different from verification because verification finds evidence to support its claims whereas falsification aims to declare something to be true or false.

This challenges religous language because it can never be tested or proven to be true or false through experience or logic

Question 2

Religious statements die ‘a death of 1000 qualifications’ Anthony Flew

Answer 2

Whilst Karl popper doesn’t mention religion in his falsification principle, flew does.

Religious claims lose meaning when constantly being adjusted to avoid being disproved.

E.g. parable of the gardener, where one of the explorers (religous believer) constantly made amendments to his claims of there being an ‘invisible gardener’ (god) despite numerous attempts by the other explorer (atheist) to disprove this claim.

This reasoning can be seen in theodicies where humans make excuses such as the FWT to justify suffering which completely disregards god loving his creation like a father loving his children’

Therefore, religious language is not meaningful cuz it refuses to be falsified

Question 3

Criticism of falsification /parable of gardener/death of 1000 qualifications

Answer 3

Hick agreed that religous statement aren’t scientifically verifiable but argued that they are eschatologically verifiable. This means the truths of religous claims like ‘the afterlife exists’ will be proven to be true or false after death. Statement is meaningful if it can be verified/falsified in the future

Parable of the celestial city-2 travelers on a road, 1 believes that it will lead to nowhere, another believes it leads to a celestial city. The experience on the road is identical, but the final destination confirms one and falsifies the other.

Therefore hick argued that a statement can be meaningful if it can be verified in principle e.g. arriving at the celestial city and falsibale in the future, if the journey ended w no city in sight.

Goes against flews ‘1000’ cuz it argues that religous statements are not meaningless just cuz it can’t be falsified in the present. E.g. the skeptic kept on asking the believer to falsify their beleif as there is no city, but the believer doesn’t make excuses saying that the celestial city is invisible, instead they held firm ‘the city is a physical place at the end of the road’- verification is simply deferred to the future