Responses to These Challenges (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes

Responses to These Challenges

Introduction

When faced with challenges from verification and falsification principles, religious thinkers developed various responses. Before examining specific responses, it's important to note some general points:

Three major scholars responded to these challenges with different approaches:

John Hick - Religious language is cognitive and will be verified eschatologically (when we die or at the Last Judgement).

R.M. Hare - Religious statements are non-falsifiable 'bliks' (interpretive frameworks) that are non-cognitive but deeply meaningful.

Ludwig Wittgenstein - Meaning comes from use within context, not from verification or falsification. Religious language operates within its own 'language game'.

Understanding these three approaches helps you form your own view on whether religious language is cognitive or non-cognitive, and assess the strength of verificationist and falsificationist critiques.

John Hick: Eschatological verification

Key terms

Hick's main argument

John Hick responds directly to verification challenges by arguing that the Christian concept of God is verifiable in principle. The key is that verification happens eschatologically - meaning after death or at the end of time.

Hick makes two important claims about religious language:

1. Religious claims are cognitive and factual
2. These claims are subject to eschatological verification

The Parable of the Celestial City

Hick presents this parable as a response to Flew's Parable of the Gardener, but reaches a very different conclusion.

Key implications

The crucial point is that there is no conclusive evidence during the journey to determine whether the Celestial City exists. However, the believer's faith influences how they interpret and respond to events along the way. This commitment is meaningful regardless of whether it's ultimately true or false. Eventually, at the end of time, the truth will be revealed.

Hick's view connects to his theodicy - he believes God will continue offering opportunities for people to know him, so that salvation will eventually be universal. Even if we cannot access ultimate truth in this life, we may expect to discover it after death.

Experiencing-as

Hick supports his argument with the concept of 'experiencing-as'. This means that interpretation is an essential element of all factual experience. We always experience things 'as' something, and as soon as we talk about things, we're interpreting them.

The key insight is that there's no difference in the raw data your eyes receive when you switch between different interpretations - it's purely interpretation. This was the dilemma faced by the explorers in Flew's story. In Hick's parable, both the believer and non-believer interpret the same evidence in completely different ways. Both interpretations are valid responses to their total experience of the world, and only at some future point (when we die) will it be clear which is correct.

Strengths of Hick's argument

1. Real possibility of afterlife

Hick's claim that heaven is a real possibility seems undeniable. The statement 'There is life after death' must be either true or false.

2. Shows religious language is cognitive

Hick's argument demonstrates that Christian truth-claims, taken as a whole, are cognitive and factual. If we wake up in a resurrected body, we'll know not only that Christian claims about afterlife are true, but also that many other Christian claims are true (God exists, Jesus's resurrection happened, Christian moral teachings are valid).

3. Interpretation is essential to all experience

Hick's 'experiencing-as' argument shows that we always interpret what we experience. The believer and non-believer are interpreting the same evidence in completely different ways, and both interpretations are valid responses to the evidence. Only in the future will it be determined which is correct.

Weaknesses of Hick's argument

1. Written from a believer's perspective

Hick writes from the perspective of someone who believes the Celestial City will be reached. From an atheist's perspective, particularly one focused on the problem of evil, the possibility of the Celestial City being verified seems too remote to consider seriously.

2. Asymmetrical verification

Hick's argument that religious claims are verifiable eschatologically isn't a normal factual claim. If Christian claims about bodily resurrection are true, they will be verified when the individual wakes to bodily experience after death. However, if they're false, they can never be falsified, because the individual will never wake up to know that they're false.

Counter-argument: The atheist's claim that there's no life after death faces the same problem. If there is life after death, the atheist will know their claim has been falsified. But if there isn't, they won't be able to verify their claim because they'll be dead.

In summary: Hick's claim 'There is life after death' is verifiable in principle but not falsifiable. The atheist's claim 'There is no life after death' is falsifiable in principle but not verifiable.

R.M. Hare: Bliks

Key term

Hare's main argument

Unlike Hick, who argues religious language is cognitive, Hare argues that religious language is essentially non-cognitive and non-falsifiable. However, this doesn't make it meaningless. Instead, religious language expresses 'bliks' - deeply held interpretive frameworks.

Hare defends religion by suggesting it consists of a set of assumptions about the world. Everyone has a blik, and bliks determine a person's other beliefs. The blik isn't negotiable through rational debate about evidence - it's beyond both reason and evidence. It's simply the way you see things: a framework for interpreting the world that is essentially non-cognitive.

Hare's Parable of the Lunatic

Understanding bliks

The lunatic is clearly deluded. There's no behaviour by which the dons can show him he's wrong - he will allow nothing to count against his theory of homicidal dons. Nothing can falsify his belief. Dons might look friendly, but that's just a mask. They might appear harmless, but that's merely a ruse to create false security.

What the lunatic has is a blik - a view about the world. The idea comes from Hume, who argued that we cannot decide what the world is like just by observing it, because all observation and evidence is open to interpretation. Rather, we have a blik - a view about the world that we get from our family or friends.

Types of bliks

Comparison: Flew vs Hare on religious statements

Flew's reply to Hare

Flew simply rejected Hare's view that religious statements are non-cognitive bliks. He argued that believers do see their statements about God as cognitive, not as non-cognitive.

Consider the Christian assertions that 'God cares for his creation' and 'God will resurrect believers after death'. What would be the point of a Christian making these claims if they didn't really believe them as matters of fact? Unless these are meaningful assertions, they have no value and are worthless. Most Christians really do believe their assertions are meaningful statements about the cosmos.

Flew insisted that Christians intend their assertions to be factually significant, but their assertions are non-falsifiable and therefore meaningless. They are doomed attempts 'to retain faith in a loving God in face of the reality of a heartless and indifferent world'.

Strengths of Hare's theory of bliks

1. Explains religious diversity

Hare's concept of bliks explains why different religions make different factual claims. The 'truths' of one religion may contradict the 'truths' of another (for example, Christianity asserts the divinity of Jesus, whereas Islam denies it). Rather than claiming one religion is right and the others wrong, it seems simpler to accept that all such assertions are expressions of non-cognitive bliks. They're deeply meaningful to those who have them, but their value lies in that personal meaning rather than in any factual content.

2. Explains resistance to contrary evidence

Hare's position explains why people aren't convinced by evidence that appears to contradict their deeply held beliefs. Believers see the evidence through the framework of their bliks.

3. Accurately reflects religious experience

Hare's argument that religious people see the world in a particular way seems to be true. Within that perspective, religious people see God at work in the world in various distinctive ways - through the beauties of nature, through meditation, and through the whole range of experiences generally described as 'religious'. Hare's view correctly reflects the idea that religion gives a view or attitude used to interpret the whole of life.

Weaknesses of Hare's theory of bliks

1. Believers see their statements as cognitive

As Flew says, most believers don't see their belief statements as non-cognitive. They take their assertions to express factual truths about the cosmos; otherwise they wouldn't bother to make them. Take the claim 'There is a God'. Believers would argue this is not just a way of seeing the world but a factual truth.

2. Odd claim about Christian beliefs

Hare seems to make a very odd claim - that Christian beliefs are expressions of non-cognitive bliks whether Christians know it or not. Christians might be supposed to know their own minds.

3. Reduces religion to psychological benefits

If there are no factual truths about Christianity, its value reduces to its psychological and sociological benefits.

4. 'There is a God' is a factual claim

'There is a God' is a factual claim, not a non-cognitive one. Why would believers want to believe it non-cognitively? Using the language of verification, it's verifiable in principle by the existence and qualities of the universe (as argued in the Design and Cosmological Arguments). It's also falsifiable in principle by the problem of evil.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Language games

Key term

Wittgenstein's approach to meaning

Wittgenstein's treatment of religious language reflects a different theory of meaning from the views examined so far. In his approach, it's inappropriate to treat religious claims as claims about the world - religious claims are not like scientific claims. The meaning of a statement is not defined by the steps you take to verify or falsify it, but by its use. Use and context govern meaning.

This approach is central to Wittgenstein's later work. The meaning of language is found in the way it's used, and language is a tool for getting something done.

'Don't think; look!'

He gives the example of a builder who calls out 'beam' or 'more bricks' to his assistant. The assistant hears it, understands what's wanted, and fetches the required items. That language is a kind of activity. You shout 'bricks' because you want some, not to give a description. If the assistant yells back 'Yes it is!' he wouldn't last long in the job. The same happens when small children first learn words - they test them out to see if they work. 'Yes' and 'No' are key words for exactly that reason - their context is everything.

Internalist account of meaning

This leads to an internalist account of meaning - meaning resides in use, not with reference to some external existing entity. This has obvious implications for religious language. If the meaning of a religious claim can only be understood in terms of how it's used, we need to pay attention and describe how religious language functions - not try to claim it's bogus or outdated science and then dismiss it.

Understanding language games

Games are fascinating because they create an enclosed, carefully defined world where players must obey rules. Football would make little sense and wouldn't generate intense emotional responses if players simply kicked the ball around randomly. Chess would make absolutely no sense without the rules governing how each piece may be moved.

Language works the same way, creating different games in different situations. Each game defines how words are used and what meanings they have. Consider these different language activities:

• Giving an order
• Making a promise
• Telling a story
• Making a joke
• Making a shopping list

These are all valid uses of language, but they're very different activities and 'forms of life'. Words only make sense when you understand the nature and purpose of that activity.

The essence of language games

Language is an indefinite set of social activities (language games), each serving a different purpose. Examples include literally playing games (football, chess, darts), giving orders, praying, cursing, forming and testing hypotheses, and so on. Each of these is its own language game.

All meaning is in the language game of those who use it. If I play chess, the world of rooks, bishops and pawns makes sense within that language game. There are points of connection with other language games (chess imports some language of war), but chess as a language game follows its own pattern and has its own meaning.

Implications for religious language

Religious language has its own rules

Religious language is its own language game, with its own set of rules governing how the game functions - praying, praising, extolling, worshipping, blessing and cursing.

Religious language contains multiple games

Religious language isn't a single language game - rather it contains a multiplicity of language games within its own context (the language of the believing community). Think of the breadth and depth of different forms of religious expression in the world. Within that context, it makes perfect sense.

Religious language regulates life

Religious language regulates the believer's life. It's like a picture - you can either use it and get something out of it, or leave it alone. There's no contradiction between using it and not using it, any more than there's a contradiction in choosing whether or not to play chess. The statements 'I believe in God' and 'I do not believe in God' are therefore not contradictory - they're just different perspectives.

Religious language differs from scientific language

Religious language is not like scientific language. In the scientific language game, using evidence is part of the game, whereas in religious language it's not. Following Wittgenstein's approach, verification and falsification debates are irrelevant to religious language.

Religious language is meaningful within its community

The religious language game is meaningful to those who want to use that game by immersing themselves in the religious 'form of life'. We shouldn't try to separate the meaning of religious beliefs from the community of people who use them and live by them.

'God' as a term within the religious community

'God' is not to be understood as a scientific hypothesis about the possible existence of a being, but a word used within the religious community to denote the creative power within everything. God is what 'God' means for religious people.

Strengths of Wittgenstein's account

1. Avoids category mistakes

It avoids the confusion that results from mistaking what language is trying to do, particularly the mistakes of the verificationist and falsificationist approaches to religious language.

2. Allows variety of meaning

It allows a variety of meaning - artistic, poetic, musical, emotional, historical, ethical and religious - rather than expecting all language to conform to an empirical or scientific norm.

3. Recognises belief as commitment

Wittgenstein recognises the meaning behind the statement of a Christian who says 'There is a God'. To the believer, that statement affirms that they are believing in God rather than believing that God exists. They're confirming belief in God as a reality in their lives, and this seems to capture the heart of what religious belief is about.

Weaknesses of Wittgenstein's account

1. Discourages dialogue

Wittgenstein's approach discourages debate with secular thinkers. If we cannot understand religious language unless we engage with it and use it according to the rules of the religious language game, this isolates religion from external criticism. Yet having to engage in critical debate with secular thinkers is arguably more likely to lead to understanding rather than confrontation.

2. Christians seek to communicate beyond their community

Many Christians are committed to dialogue with those who don't share their language game. As a 'form of life', religion does attempt to communicate with those outside its own community - indeed Evangelical Christianity has this as one of its primary aims. It seems unrealistic to expect the meaning of all religious assertions to be protected from external examination and criticism, whilst claiming that the Christian message is of universal significance.

3. Truth becomes relative

For some, the most serious criticism is that religious statements no longer have to be true or false. Theoretically, a group could construct a consistent set of belief statements based on bloodthirsty religious practices of past civilisations, and these would form a valid language game. But most believers don't assume this is what they're doing when they make religious assertions. Believers who assert 'there is a God', 'God is love', or 'there is an afterlife' generally don't think of these statements in anything like the same way as Wittgenstein. Instead, they believe they're making assertions about reality that are true.

4. Ignores evidence for metaphysical beliefs

Wittgenstein's theory assumes there can be no evidence for metaphysical beliefs. This is arguably false. 'There is a God' is the main metaphysical belief of Christian theism and is a cognitive/factual claim insofar as a creative mind is a likely hypothesis to explain the universe's existence. Bertrand Russell's claim that the universe's existence is an inexplicable 'brute fact' isn't supported by the scientific method. Science works on the assumption that there are discoverable natural laws by which the universe functions. It seems arbitrary to claim that everything in the universe is explained by natural laws but the universe itself is an exception to those laws.

Remember!