Falsification symposium

Karl Popper

The falsification principle was proposed by Karl Popper who argued that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and proven false.

As a consequence, Religion cannot be seen as a scientific statement, since it cannot be falsified successfully.

Anthony Flew

Flew applied the falsification principle to Religious language to argue that religious believers do not allow for their statements to be falsified and therefore their statements cannot be seen as scientific.

Flew contributed to "Theology and Falsification: a symposium" by referring to the parable of the gardener.

The parable of the gardener

• Two explorers make a statement, one arguing that there is a garderner maintaining the land, whilst the other argues that there is not.
• No matter how many times it is proven that there is not a gardener, the explorer still believes that there is a gardener.
• Flew uses this analogy to demonstrate how religion does not allow their statements to be proven wrong and they therefore cannot be falsified and cannot be genuine assertions.
• When believers are faced with a fact that contradicts their belief,

Weaknesses of Flews' analogy

• Arguably, the notion of faith itself implies having confidence in a belief despite things being against it.
• Religious believers are aware of the criticisms of religion and factors that contradict their belief yet they choose to remain faithful.
• Flew mistakingly subjects religion to scientific standards and tests when a phenomenon such as religion is answering different questions than science.
• Religion and science cannot be held to the same standards as a part of religion is believing in a higher power that defies laws of gravity and physics.
• Flew has clearly committed a leap in logic with his parable by assuming that there is a universal criterion for what counters as a "genuine assertion."

Strengths of Flews' analogy

• Flew acknowledges a flaw within religion which seemingly picks and chooses which bits of information it chooses to acknowledge to strengthen their own beliefs.
• Much of religious beliefs are based on pieces of information that contradict scientific truths.
• Seeing religious events and theories as scientific fact can be harmful to the growth and development of society.

R.M Hare

Hare responds to Flew by acknowledging that religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, however, they have different logical statuses.

Bliks: Strong, life-changing beliefs which cannot be falsified or verified (such as religious belief.)

The analogy of the Dons

A university student is convinced that the dons are out to kill him and no evidence will change his mind, despite his irrational fear.

In the same way, no evidence will convince religious people that they are wrong.

Religion does not therefore have to be falsified to be a genuine assertion, to the person who holds the belief, it is very much genuine.

Hick's criticism of Hare

There is no distinguishing between "right" and "wrong" blinks, yet Hare refers to the University student as "insane."

If statements cannot be falsified, we do not have the right to label blacks as "insane."

Strengths of Hare

Hare accurately represents how society functions.

There are endless differing views in society, and despite there being evidence against beliefs that many people hold, the belief remains intact.

Different statements have different logical status.

Basil Mitchell

Mitchell argues that religious statements are genuinely factual, even if they are not falsifiable.

The parable of the partisan

• The analogy depicts a fighter meeting a stranger who gains his trust, even though the stranger is seen working with the enemy.
• The fighter persists in the belief that the stranger is who they say they are despite evidence proving otherwise.
• Mitchell argues that religious believers acknowledge the evidence counting against their cause however this allows believers to reinforce and strengthen their beliefs.
• Mitchell highlights that despite having evidence against religious beliefs, it isn't the "blind faith" that Flew refers to as the soldier and religious believers also have evidence to back their cause.
• Eschatological verification arguably will prove believers right in the end.
• It is natural for a transcendent, higher being to be unknown to an extent, therefore it is not outrageous for believers to put evidence counting against their belief to the side and have faith regardless.

Strengths of the Parable of the Partisan

1. Captures the Nature of Faith:

• The parable illustrates that religious faith often involves trust in God despite appearances or contradictory evidence. For believers, faith is not necessarily dependent on empirical evidence but is a commitment that can endure through doubt and difficulty. This provides a realistic understanding of how many religious people live their faith, continuing to believe even in the face of suffering or evil.

2. Shows Complexity of Religious Belief:

• The parable acknowledges that religious faith is complex and cannot be reduced to simple logical propositions that must be verified or falsified. Just as the partisan maintains faith in the stranger despite the evidence, believers often maintain faith in God while trusting that God's ways may be beyond human understanding.

3. Emphasizes Personal Relationship:

• The parable highlights the personal nature of religious belief. The partisan's faith in the stranger is based on a personal encounter and relationship, which parallels the way many believers describe their relationship with God. This personal commitment is central to much of religious life.

4. Counters Logical Positivism:

• The parable is a response to Logical Positivism, which claims that religious language is meaningless because it cannot be empirically verified or falsified. Mitchell's parable demonstrates that religious belief is not about simple empirical claims but involves trust, commitment, and personal experience, making the verification principle irrelevant to religious language.

Weaknesses of the Parable of the Partisan

1. Faith vs. Evidence:

• Critics argue that the parable allows believers to dismiss any contradictory evidence (e.g., the existence of evil) without engaging with it seriously. Just as the partisan continues to trust the stranger despite conflicting evidence, this approach can seem to allow blind faith, which some critics see as intellectually dishonest or irrational.

2. Problem of Evil:

• The parable does not adequately address the problem of evil in a substantive way. The partisan trusts the stranger even when he acts against the resistance, but there is no explanation for why the stranger might be acting in this contradictory manner. Similarly, the parable suggests that believers trust in God despite the existence of evil and suffering, without offering a compelling theodicy (justification for God allowing evil). This may be unsatisfactory for those seeking a more rational explanation.

3. Could Lead to Fideism:

• The parable risks encouraging fideism, the belief that faith should be held independently of reason or evidence. If believers are encouraged to simply trust without ever questioning or considering evidence, this can lead to a form of irrationalism. Critics might argue that this undermines the intellectual integrity of religious belief, making it impervious to any kind of critique or inquiry.

4. Over-reliance on Personal Commitment:

• While the personal nature of the partisan's faith mirrors many people's religious experience, critics may argue that personal commitment alone cannot justify religious belief. Personal encounters or subjective experiences are not necessarily valid grounds for truth claims about the nature of reality, and the parable risks suggesting that belief is merely a matter of subjective preference rather than a reasoned response to evidence.

5. Ambiguity of Trust:

• The parable suggests that the partisan's trust in the stranger persists through seemingly contradictory actions. However, critics might question how long trust should persist when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At what point does the believer's trust in God become unreasonable or blind? The parable doesn't offer clear guidance on when faith should be questioned or reevaluated in light of contradictory evidence.