The two I am uploading concern religious language, mainly the falsification principle, and life after death. My most previous post concerned the body-soul debate, and the life after death essay is a nice lead on to that. The life after death essay also has a nice theological slant, which tend to be the harder essay questions, so may be of particular use to fellow students on the course. Hope they are enjoyable reading and/or help!
NB for students: if these both obtained A* grades, either 32 or 33 out of 35.
Falsification Principle Essay
“The Falsification Principle fails to clearly demonstrate that
religious language is meaningless” Discuss.
The meaningfulness of religious language has been in great
debate ever since the Logical Positivists proposed their views on verification,
which promoted Flew, and Popper, to develop their ideas on falsification in the
early 1950’s. Their ideas were debated intensely in a series of articles, known
as the University Debate between Mitchell, Hare and Flew, and all seem to rest
upon what your individual definition of ‘meaningful’ language is. The ideas put
forward by believers, verificationists and falsificationists shall be
critically assessed throughout this essay, focusing on definitions of
meaningful language, and how this affects the successfulness of falsification.
Sir Karl Popper was dubbed ‘the original opposition’ of
Verification as he believed that the only way science could progress was via
the use of falsification rather than verification, otherwise we may begin to
explain away anomalies in scientific theorems. These ideas were developed fully
into the Falsification Principle by Anthony Flew, who stated that a meaningful
statement is one that can be falsified. By this we mean you may be able to go
out and prove the opposite of your assertion, for example “all swans are
white”. This is a falsifiable statement as if you observe one black swan you
have falsified your assertion. Conversely the assertion “it will rain
somewhere, sometime” is unfalsifiable as you cannot find somewhere that never
has, and never will, experience rain. Flew also noted that the more specific a
statement, the more knowledge may be gained from it, as it is more probable the
statement is wrong (falsifiable). These premises led Flew to conclude that religious
language is meaningless, as religious believers will not accept evidence that
may contradict their beliefs, hence they “die the death of a thousand
qualifications” Anthony Flew, University
Debate. He proposed that believers will continue to qualify their belief in
the face of opposing evidence, reducing their beliefs to nothing, rather than
accepting they may be wrong. An example of this is the assertion “God is good”
when faced with the Biblical tale of Gods command to slaughter the Amalekites. A
believer may respond by saying ‘this is all part of Gods loving plan but as
humans we cannot understand this’ rather than accepting this as contradictory
evidence and adjusting their belief accordingly.
Furthermore Flew used John Wisdoms Parable of the Gardener
to support his views, although the parable was not intended for use in the
falsification debate originally. The Parable entails two keen gardeners who
come across a clearing in the jungle in which both flowers and weeds thrive.
One gardener concludes it is a purely natural process whilst the other believes
a gardener has been tending to it. They set traps and cameras in place to try
and catch a gardener, but no matter how many traps fail one gardener believes
it is a natural process, whilst the other maintains the clearing is tended to
by an invisible, intangible gardener. It is the qualifications used by the
latter gardener that Flew sees as “dying the death of a thousand
qualifications” and reduce his belief to nothing meaningful. Thus through Flews
premises it thus seems that falsification has been successful in demonstrating
religious language as meaningless. Additionally Flews theory seems to have
strengths over the Verification Principle as you may falsify something you
cannot verify, overcoming Swinburne’s critique of verification. To verify the
above example “all swans are white” you must observe all swans that have ever
existed, whereas to falsify the assertion only one black swan need be located. Conversely
it must be noted however that Swinburne’s criticism is still prominent for the
falsification principle, using the analogy of the toys and cupboard. If we
propose that when we are not looking all our toys come out of the cupboard and
move, despite being unverifiable and unfalsifiable, the assertion has meaning. Additionally
after Flew published his theory Mitchell and Hare responded, modifying the
definition of meaningful language to what they saw as more appropriate.
Hare thought Flew had made an error when he treated
religious language as assertions, as they are in fact life-changing expressions
of belief. Hare spoke of Bliks, which are language groups you may speak
meaningfully in (a little like Wittgenstein’s Language Game Theory) and they
come in two forms; sane and insane. To demonstrate this he used the Parable of
the Lunatic and the Dons, in which a student is convinced his professors are
plotting to murder him. His friend sees this as insane, so procures the nicest,
most humble don to the lunatic in order to convince him he is safe. The lunatic
however sees the friendly don as a cunning ploy, so the dons may gain his
trust. This continues, but the lunatic never accepts the dons are not trying to
kill him. This parable demonstrates Hare’s point precisely; the lunatic is in
the incorrect, insane blik, whilst his friend remains in the sane blik.
Whichever blik you are in however will affect your life; the lunatic will
clearly act differently around the University than his friend, due to his
beliefs. It is the impact of these beliefs that give the language (and
following his argument, religious language) meaning, despite being
unfalsifiable. Vardy would support Hare, as he stated “religious language calls
people out beyond the frontiers of their existing morality to a different way
of living life”. By this Vardy is stating religion has a profound effect on the
way people live their life, hence he may see religious language as meaningful
as it is someone making a life-changing expression of belief that affects their
life. Perhaps then this new, broader definition of meaningful is the one we
should accept, and hence falsification has failed to conclusively state religious
language is meaningless, as we should be using a different definition of
meaningful language.
In response to Hare’s ideas however one must note that his
view is by no means perfect; if there are sane and insane bliks that are both
equally unverifiable and unfalsifiable, how are we to know which we are in? Both
sets of beliefs will change our lives and the way we live them, but only one is
right. It seems illogical to follow a blik that you can never know to be right.
Furthermore Basil Mitchell would argue for another definition of meaningful
language that goes against both Hare and Flew. Mitchell saw religious language
as meaningful and that Flews premise was invalid as he had treated religious
language as cognitive when it is not. Mitchell pointed out that whilst it does
seem religious language is unfalsifiable and unverifiable this should not
detract from its meaning. Moreover he argued that believers do accept there is
evidence against their beliefs, but choose to place faith in their beliefs,
which shall be revealed at the end of time. This view is similar to the eschatological
verification of Hick. To demonstrate this concept Mitchell used the Parable of
the Partisan and the Stranger. This parable entails a partisan who is met by a
stranger claiming to be the leader of the resistance. The stranger tells the
partisan he may sometimes help you and your fellow partisans, however sometimes
he may be seen in the opposition’s uniform; throughout all this the stranger
asks the partisan to trust him. Some of the partisan’s friends question the
strangers claim when they see him helping the opposition, however the partisan
remains strong in his belief. Mitchell saw belief as the crucial word in this
parable; believers have reason behind their faith, like the Partisan, and note
the evidence against their beliefs but choose to place faith in them. Religious
language is indeed unfalsifiable but this does not mean it has no meaning to
believers, according to Mitchell. This view contains similarities with
Kierkegaard’s, who reasoned the ‘mysteries of Christianity’ cannot be explained
by reason, or be falsified, but they do not need to be as they exist outside of
reason. In this way they are paradoxical – one can believe, but cannot prove. Anti-realists
may support this claim as they argue religious language is meaningful as it is
coherent within religious groups. Ergo the falsification principle can be seen
as very weak when concluding religious language is meaningless as believers,
along with Mitchell, would see their values and beliefs as non-cognitive
claims that affect their lives, and are therefore meaningful (rather than Flews
definition of meaningful, that which is falsifiable). However whatever ones
view on Mitchell one must note that this parable is weak when addressing the
problem of evil and believers faith in God as the amount of reason behind the
claim ‘God is loving’ is questionable. The prominence of both natural and moral
evil in the world causes many people to see faith in a loving God completely
illogical, hence Mitchells claims should be viewed with a critical eye.
In light of the arguments expressed the falsification
principle does not clearly demonstrate religious language to be meaningless.
The crux of the debate, as shown by the differing definitions of meaningful put
forward by Mitchell and Hare, is what you regard as meaningful language. If you
accept Flews premise that meaningful language is that which is falsifiable then
he seems quite successful (excluding the minor objection from Swinburne); however
if you accept the definitions of Hare and Mitchell falsification fails
completely. These definitions are much more widely accepted in society and by
believers throughout the world hence the falsification principle remains
controversial and highly criticised, in my eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment