Falsification Principle

Question 1

What is the significance of falsification

Answer 1

• language can be meaningful if it can be falsified —> we need to know what evidence would falsify the statement in principle
• science tries to verify things by seeing it can be disproved - > avoid bias
• it proves things by falsifying them, not confirming them
• pseudo science: can be proved right by anything, illogical and not meaningful as it cannot be falsified

Question 2

What is the falsification principle

Answer 2

Any statement that cannot be falsified would be empty in meaning - flew

Question 3

Flew and religious language - falsification

Answer 3

• flew thought religious language was meaningless because there is nothing that can count against religious statements
• believers would refuse to accept any evidence that might falsify their beliefs

Question 4

How is religious language re qualified and why does it lose meaning

Answer 4

• moral and natural evil: free will, Adam and Eve and punishment requalify this
• theodicies requalify Gods goodness
• these claims have becomes different from the original claim, so it loses meaning

Question 5

what is flews parable of the garden

Answer 5

• 2 people see a garden with flowers and weeds
• one says that there must be a gardener and the other says there is no gardener
• they never see a gardener, but the believer says he is invisible
• the gardener is never detected, but the believer says he cannot be hurt and invincible to things that could detect him eg barbed wire
• the non believer asks the first what remains of his original assertion, as his requalified gardener is no longer the same as the gardener they began with

Question 6

what does flews parable of the gardener mean

Answer 6

• flowers and weeds are good and bad in life –> flowers are beauty, complexity, order eg order qua regularity in the design argument of paley; weeds are disorder and suffering eg problem of evil
• the person who does not believe is the sceptic, who does not believe without evidence, like Hume
• the person who requalifies is the religious believer, who continues to requalify the characteristics of the gardener (god) to reaffirm his belief
• despite evidence to the contrary, it is ignored by requals –> this reduces the meanings of the religious statement (there is a god/gardener)
• flew: requalifications cause religious statements die a ‘death by a thousand requalifications’
• these meaningless truth claims are dangerous as they are often lived by as a doctrine ‘theological utterance’

Question 7

requalifying the statement: there is no god

Answer 7

• no need to falsify in the same way as religious language

Question 8

difference between science and religious language when falsifying (for and against)

Answer 8

• science can be falsified and we can make progress
• rel language makes no progress because of this
• RL is a different encounter with the world, not logically, cannot measure by the same standard

Question 9

hare and bliks (hares response to flew)

Answer 9

PARABLE OF THE PARANOID STUDENT –> firm belief that all dons want to kill him, and will not be persuaded otherwise
- argues that everyone has their own personal spin on their worldview, which cannot be falsified and cannot be tested at all
- bilks do not make factual claims about the world that can be tested
- this blik has an impact on how I act, and no evidence can change this
- religious language, like ‘god loves me’ is a blik
- does not matter if this belief is true or false, but matters if it brings about a consequence: meaning is concerned with CONSEQUENCE

but
- does language convey perspective or truth
- saying all knowledge is equally valuable reduces an opportunity for knowledge to develop

Question 10

mitchell and significant articles of faith (response to flew)

Answer 10

PARABLE OF THE PARTISAN –> he finds it difficult to change his view despite evidence that might weaken it as he has dedicated his life to this view
- beliefs you are committed to; things that make a big difference to how you live your life
- ideas you have invested alot in and dont let go of easily
- reasonable religious beliefs fall into this category
- thinks rel believers are in constant danger of letting their beliefs become vacuous formulae

Question 11

what 2 approaches to understanding rel lang does mitchell disregard and why

Answer 11

1. provisional hypothesis: scientific ideas, can be disregarded as soon as contradictory evidence is provided; irrational to hold onto an idea in the face of evidence against it –> Antony Flew
2. vacuous formulae: beliefs that never change based on experience and make no difference to life (bliks), requalified statements with flew

Question 12

flews response to mitchell

Answer 12

• agrees with the fact that rel believers do not always qualify their belief as soon as contradictory evidence turns up
• parable of the partisan does not contain a successful analogy for God as the partisan may have perfectly good reasons for the strangers actions, like siding with the police for his own safety
• God does not have these restrictions so the religious believer doesnt have the same excuses to trust in God
• believes that if ‘relentlessly pursued’ mitchell would have to admit god does not exist or requalify God

Question 13

flews response to hare

Answer 13

1. bliks are a ‘wholly unorthdox’ way for christians to view their language
   - blik means that someone views the world AS IF god created it, but flew does not think this is what christians mean when they say God created the world
   - bliks insinuate rel lang is PERSPECTIVE, but flew says it is viewed as TRUTH
2. deceitful to treat rel lang as a blik when religion tells people how to live their lives and why things are the way they are
   - rel ideas may be ‘fraudulent’ if they sound like important reasons to etc not have an abortion, but were peoples bliks/perspectives all this time
   - silly to base your life that is a matter of perspective, not something concrete and absolute eg there is a god and he loves me
   - may allow wrong blik to become influential and people will base their life off of this false claim
   - 1984: rel believers are party members in Orwells book who convince themselves that the party is always right, even when they know it is wrong (doublethink)