The Falsification Principle Offers No Real Challenge To Religious Belief. Dic

HideShow resource information
Preview of The Falsification Principle Offers No Real Challenge To Religious Belief. Dic

First 727 words of the document:

Kelsey O'Donnell
The Falsification Principle Offers No Real Challenge to Religious Belief 28/35
The Falsification Principle aims to improve upon the Verification Principle, which states that things can only
be verified through the senses, whereas the Falsification Principle states that the difficulty with religious
statements is that there is no way that they can ever be proven false, even though there may be no empirical
evidence.
This principle may offer no challenge to religious belief, as through the Verification principle, which this
theory is based upon, religious belief is eschatologically verifiable according to John Hick, as one cannot
know whether God exists until they themselves have experienced him at the end of their journey to the
`Celestial City`. The celestial city can never be verified, until at the end of the journey, so there should be no
debates over religion, due to the fact that it can never be verified or falsified. This offers great relief for a
religious believer knowing that this principle can never disprove religion, as not being has yet experienced
God. This theory can never be proven false, so it has no tautological and eschatological verification, as it is
subjective. This theory differs from the Verification Principle, as it suggests that things cannot be proven false
using science, but the verification principle can't be proven right. Antony Flew applied the Falsification
Principle to religious language and said that religious statements are meaningless, as they are not factually
significant and make no genuine claims about the world. This causes a problem for religious belief, as it
suggests that it cannot be proven, therefore meaningless.
The Flat Earth Society suggests that if the earth is seen and felt as flat, then it is, and that scientific proof
does not verify, as not everyone can see the proof. Scientific proof is seen as a significant factor in
challenging the existence of God and Godtalk this society however, believes that religious language cannot
be falsified, as God has not not been eschatologically verified, meaning that atheists and others cannot pose
as any threat to religious language. Flew argued that religious statements can never be verified, neither
falsified, on the other hand, Flew argued that believers will always say that God is good, despite evidence
against, and if one cannot accept some proof but follow blindly, and then change their belief to counter a
criticism, their belief becomes less meaningful and then is unfalsifiable. Flew said that this is meaningless
because they die the `death by a thousand qualifications'.
Through John Wisdom's analogy of `the gardener`, to prove God's existence, a theist and an atheist stay an
observe a garden and with no proof of God, the theist still believes and gives an explanation, then test it in
another way. If a theist cannot accept some empirical evidence, then they kill off the meaning of their original
belief by changing and adapting it to counter evidence from the atheist, meaning that it is unfalsifiable to not
accept empirical evidence. This is an issue for religious belief, as it suggests that atheists should accept
empirical evidence, as they cannot see God, but not accepting evidence means that the falsification principle
proves that religious belief if not worth talking about, as the religious believer cannot accept they may be
wrong. According to the falsification principle it suggests that one cannot know if God exists until they go to
Heaven, so then it is meaningful. If a religious believer can accept some empirical evidence, but also keep
their own original belief, then the falsification principle offers no threat to religious believers, as they believe
they will see God at the end of their journey.
Hick stated that one cannot falsify an a priori statement, but one can verify an a priori statement, as a priori
statements are innate and come from knowledge from understanding and something in itself, but a posteriori
statements are based on knowledge from empirical experience. To a certain extent, the falsification principle
does not challenge religious belief, due to the fact that religious belief cannot be falsified, but people still
1

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Kelsey O'Donnell
understand the meaning of the statement. Richard Swinburne presented a criticism to the falsification
principle, by using the analogy of toys being in a cupboard. We can never prove the toys do not come out of
the toy cupboard and move around when we are not watching them. We might not be able to falsify whether
or not the toys move, but we understand the idea of toys moving.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Kelsey O'Donnell
and know good from evil and have the free will to choose good. On the other hand, Augustine states that
evil is a result of Adam and Eve, meaning that the world was good and perfect until humans brought evil into
it. Augustine said that as God is just, some humans can go to heaven, meaning that if people believe in God,
they will find out eschatically whether God exists and be good.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all resources »