Falsification

Falsification

1. Antony Flew

   • Parable of the gardener: two explorers stumble across a clearing. One posits a gardener. After multiple tests (like observation, sniffer dogs, fences) no gardener is found
     • The gardener is claimed to be invisible, intangible, insensible, having no scent, sound and who comes secretly to look after the garden he loves
   • 'Now it often seems to people who are not religious as if there was no conceivable event or series of events the occurence of which would be admitted by sophisticated religious people to be a suggicient reason for conceding 'There wasn't a God after all''
     • Example: God loves as us a father loves his children. What of inoperable cancer in a child's throat? Is there anything that can falsify this assertion?
   • God 'dies the death of a thousand qualifications'
   • What looked like a genuinely scientific hypothesis, that the gardener comes to the clearing, is actually not a genuinely scientific hypothesis because the believer does not accept falsification

2. Karl Popper

   • 'One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falisifiability, or refutability, or testatbility'
   • Drew a distinction between Einstein's theory of gravity and astrology. Einstein's theory of gravity was scientific because it was potentially falsifiable. Astrology was vague and ignored dis-confirming evidence
   • Popper's solution to his 'problem of demarcation' is the criterion of falsifiability
   • If religious claims are not scientific, they may be claimed to lack hard evidence, the support of a learned community, falsifiability and generally features of beliefs that make them credible
   • He was described by Otto Neurath as the 'official opposition' to the Logical Positivists
   • Remarked that probability does not necessarily count in favour of a theory. I could say 'it is raining somewhere' and though it is probable it is not useful.

3. R. M. Hare

   • Uses the parable of the lunatic: a luantic is convinced that his dons are out to kill him, even after being shown 'the mildest and most respected dons'. This is just the cunning of a profession that wants to lure him into a false sense of security
   • Because religious statements are not assertions, they are immune to verification and falsification
   • 'If Hare's religion really is a blik, involving no cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of a supposed personal creator, then surely he is not a Christian at all?'
   • He rejects the view that religious statements are scientific explanations of the world: instead they are completely life-changing and a matter of the very deepest concern
   • John Hick: Hare seeks to distinguish between insane and sane bliks. However, if bliks are by definition unfalsifiable, it makes little sense to speak of one being more sane than the other

4. Basil Mitchell

   • Uses the parable of the 'Stanger'. One day a resistance fighter meets a stranger who impresses him. This stranger is reportedly in charge of the resistance. He is told his faith will be tested and that this Stranger will be seen with the enemy. Sometimes he is seen helping members of resistance, other times handing them over to authorities. He is still trusted
     • The difference between this and what Hare says is that there is initial reason for having faith in the stranger and that evidence is admitted that is contrary to belief. This stems from trust in the Stranger
   • Believers will recognise that evidence counts against their beliefs; that is what makes the problem of evil intractable
     • The problem is in the response of the theologian: they constantly make qualifications, despite God's attributes making this impossible.
   • Belief in the stranger is not conclusively verifiable or falsifiable, but this does not mean religious assertions are insane 'bliks' as Hare thinks
   • Qualifications are acceptable depending on (1) the initial impression of the stranger and (2) the manner in which the stranger's behaviour is taken
   • John Hick: develops analogy by suggesting that, once the war is over, the Stranger will either be greeted as a great hero or shot as a traitor. This leads into his ideas about eschatological verification

5. Criticisms

   • John Cottingham: it is because religious truths are held to be in part a mystery, beyond the comprehension of the human mind, that to treat them with logical analysis is inappropriate. What is needed it involvement and practice of the faith
   • Vincent Brummer: metaphysical claims about God are not given to empirical verification or falsification because God is not empirically observable. Faith can perceive God in the world (i.e., God's grace and calling) but not scientific experience
   • God according to classical theism is wholly 'other' and radically different from anything human. Applying human concepts and language like falsification is therefore inappropriate