The Falsification Principle Offers No Real Challenge to Religious Beliefs (35) Marie Conmee The falsification principle is the

demarcation between the scientific and the non-scientific. Falsification is famously associated with Karl Popper. Poppers opposition to verification theory was based on the assumption of the Vienna Circle that what mattered was to be able to prove scientific propositions true. In 1955 Antony Flew went on to build on this principle and named in the falsification principle. In his article Theology and Falsification Flew suggested that instead of insisting that a statement should be verifiable, instead it should be falsifiable. Flew went on to say To state that something is the case is logically to imply that something else is not the case. We can find out the meaning of a statement by asking what would be compatible with is the truth. Flew reinforced his principle by referring to a parable from John Wisdoms paper Gods to show how believers can fail to question what may prove their beliefs wrong. However, many philosophers have challenged this principle, such as R.M Hare. Hare claimed that a religious believers statements for example God is good should be understood as a bliks because of the impact that they have on peoples lives. Basil Mitchell also argued that Flew was wrong in thinking that religious believers never question anything that may doubt their beliefs. Falsification is well known among the critics Dorothy Emmet and Antony Flew, though the roots of this principle were influence by Karl Raimund Popper. Poppers opposition to verification theory was based on the assumption of the Vienna Circle that what was important was to be able to prove scientific proposition true. Some statements are unable to be falsified, as we cannot understand to observe anything that will falsify them, for example a personal statements or past events. Popper considers these statements as not meaningless, but they are also not scientific. Conduction experiments is an example of how we should use this principle. When conducting experiments we should look to falsify theories instead of verifying. If we did this the other way round, we would want to explain away anomalies and exceptions. Though it is the irregularities that show mistakes of the original theory. Anthony Flew in An Introduction to Western Philosophy explains the point that Popper is making clearly: no theory and no proposition can be properly presented as even a possible contribution to science unless its proponents are prepared to specify what would have to happen, or to have happened, for it to be falsified; that is, shown to be false. Flew claimed that Popper put forward his principle, whereas the verification principle was put forward as a criterion not of meaning but of scientific status. Again, Flew used the parable of the gardener to further his theory and to illustrate how religious believers are guilty of ignoring evidence that can contradict their religious beliefs of an omnipotent and benevolent God. The parable includes two explorers come upon a clearing in the jungle. Some parts look tended, others do not. In Wisdoms original parable, he is making the point that the world is rather like that. One explorer is convinced that a gardener comes to attend the flowers, while the other disagrees, pointing to the weeds as evidence that there is an absence of a gardener, therefore doubting his existence. However the first explorer still insists there is gardener, concluding that he is invisible, intangible and inaudible. The second explorer remains unconvinced and asks what is the difference between such a gardener, and no gardener at all?. Flew claimed that this was similar to religious believers, as they can believe things that have no empirical evidence proving their truth. Hare also maintained that believers are guilty of alternating phrases or evidence that can disprove their faith. For example the may describe a natural disaster as Gods working in a mysterious way but then they also believe that their God loves them immensely. Flew claimed that believing this is to die the death of a thousand qualifications. Flew suggested

that religious language is meaningless because the believer does not rationally challenge it, and there is nothing that can be done to change their position.

Philosophers went to long lengths to stop anything counting against their faith statements. R.M Hare believed that a religious believers statement should be understood as a blik. Hare defined a blik as ways of regarding the world which are in principle neither verifiable nor falsifiable-but modes of cognitton to which the terms verifiable or illusory properly appl. Hare explained that religious statements have significant meaning as they make an impact on someones life. Hare used the analogy of the insane student to further his theory. The student believes that everyone he comes across are set out to kill him. Even when there is proof of this not happening, the student simply replies with an exscuse. Hare notes that while the lunatics view can neither be proven nor disproven, it has an effect on his life. Hare gives the example of driving a car, we assume that the structure we drive will remain solid, though we do not and cannot know this, and therefore cannot prove or disprove it. Similarly to Hare, Basil Mitchell also wanted to point out that religious statement are not meaningless even if they are not clearly falsifiable. Mitchell claimed that Flew was incorrect because he did not understand that religious believers have prior commitment to trust in their God, and will be less likely to undermine their faith. Believers understand that there is evil in the world and when they assert that there is a benevolent God, it is done with a form of qualification. Again, Mitchell uses a parable to demonstrate that religious believes do accept questioning their faith. Mitchells parable talks of a resistance fighter who meets a stranger who impresses him deeply. They spend a night in conversation, during which the Stranger admits to be the head of the entire Resistance. The fighter believes him, but is warned by the Stranger that his faith will be tested, and that at times he will find the man he trusted apparently working with the enemy. Nevertheless, the paristan continues in his belief that the stranger is who he said he was even when he sees the stranger in uniform. Mitchell argues that to remain sane, the partisan must accept the reality of the evidence against his belief. If he does not, he is guilty of a failure of faith as well as logic. If he does not accept that there is strong evidence against their being an all loving God, then they are guilty of selfdelusion. If the believer does not accept the evidence his beliefs as Hare believed will become vacuous formulae to which experience makes no difference and which make no difference to life. To conclude, Antony Flews argument stands out as the most coherent. Through the university debate between the three philosophers, a religious believer cannot continue to not accept that there are faults in certain language. As this would be both irrational and inaccurate. To believe in a religion the person must question it to have a strong faith. It is for these reasons that I believe that the falsification does offer a challenge to religious believers.