Basil Mitchell              

Michell states that Flew makes an error in his analysis of the religious believer because the Christian attitude is not that of the detached observer, but that of the believer.

Mitchell is different than Flew as he is saying essentially that there is a bigger picture. Just because of one aspect of God may be put into question such as ‘God is omnibenevolent ‘when there is the existence of evil it doesn’t mean that all other statements about God are meaningless.  

For example a stranger may see two friends fighting. To the stranger it may appear that the two friends are in fact mortal enemies however this is not the true. The stranger applying the falsification principle would say that the friends are not open to being wrong and so that there statement ‘we are friends’ is meaningless however this no correct. While the strangers reasoning according to the principle is correct he is still in fact wrong due to his inability to see the whole picture, it is not through any fault of his own but rather just lack of experience.

Mitchell agrees with Flew in that religious language is an assertion however unlike Flew, Mitchell sees these assertions as explanations rather than pure assertions. Mitchell believes that these explanations when out together give a picture of God they are parts of a picture that makes up God rather than meaningless vague statements that a theist will fall back on when trying to justify a position

 ‘God loves humanity’ is not conclusively falsifiable but it can be treated in one of the three following ways.

11)      As provisional hypotheses to be discarded if the experience goes against them.

22)      As significant articles of faith, something of belief (but not of meaning?)

33)      As vacuous formulae (help what does that mean!?) to which experience makes no difference and makes no difference in real life.

Mitchell Summary

Religious language makes truth claims about the world

Individual religious statements need to be put in the border context of the whole belief system

Religious language is not open to falsification because it is a matter of faith  

Falsification Notes Right Up

The Falsification principle

‘In order to say something that is possibly true about the world we must say something that is possibly false’ -Anthony Flew

The falsification theory is that an assertion is meaningless if there is no way in which it could be falsified. The falsification principle is not concerned with what may make something true, but with what can in principle make it false.

For example it is meaningful to say that it will rain tomorrow as it is also possible that it won’t.   

Karl Popper linked the falsification principle to scientific theory after all after a scientific experiment is complete the results must be tested against a null hypothesis, in other words it must be proven that the data is not due to chance.

 ‘The scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability or testability’ – Karl Popper

For example Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was a scientific theory as it was potentially falsifiable; however the claims of mystic astrologers are so vague that they cannot be possibly wrong and so in the eyes of Popper or Flew are meaningless.    

So how does this relate to religion?

Well if the principle is drawn to belief statements such as ‘Jesus is the incarnation of God’ then they are meaningless as (most) believers are unable to accept that they are wrong. If these claims are too be ever verified than they must be put through the scientific method of testing… which we know will never happen  as God is outside the universe and so it is impossible to empirically prove his existence anyway.

Antony Flew goes on to say that even if there is evidence of Gods non-existence that it is near impossible to show it to a theist. It seems to flew that there is no event or series of events that would ever convince the ‘sophisticated religious person’ that there wasn’t a God after all. (Which I don’t believe is true as it is not unheard of for people to lose their faith after events of suffering)

Flew uses the Parable of the gardener to illustrate his point it goes as follows:

There are two explores out in the depths of the jungle when they chance upon a clearing containing many flowers. One explorer believes that the clearing is the result of a gardener while the other believes that it is merely a naturally occurring phenomenon. They decide to test the theory and so they set up their tents by the clearing and wait. No gardener shows, one explore says that they haven’t seen the gardener because he is invisible, and so they set up a barbed wire fence and electrify it (mabe that’s why they never find the gardener, because he come back to his garden and two men have put barbed wire round it not sure how I would react but I certainly wouldn’t try and go back in……) The men bring blood hounds to try and smell the invisible gardener but still they find nothing. The believer is not convinced he still insists there is a gardener just that he is now invisible, intangible, insensible (to electric shocks ) and also makes no sound nor gives off no scent. The sceptic at last despairs and says ‘But what remains of our original assertion?’

‘Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?’

What Flew is trying to demonstrate is that religious people are like the believing explore. Flew suggests that God dies a ‘death by a thousand qualifications’

By this phrase Flew meant that when a religious believer is challenged about any statement to do with God his response is to always modify the way in which they talk about God in order to respond to the challenge. Believers change and alter their explanations by responding with an equally vague and unfalisifiable statement.

Flew argues that believers end up modifying their statements about God so much when challenged that the statements no longer resemble the original claim about God. (in other words what was said before God dies a death from a thousand qualifications )

Problems of the falsification principle coming soon

location : Library

Start: 2nd 

Finish 3rd

Music: Favorite Worst Nightmare -Arctic monkeys 

Can Conversations About God Have Meaning ? Notes

Ferdinand de Saussure Semiotics
A Sign = A label that we give to a thing in order to be able to communicate about them. For example a pen

A Signifier = The form the sign takes using the previous example 'P-E-N'

Signified = The concept or thing that the sign refers to.

Even if someone has the idea of the sign and the signifier,if they do not have a concept of the what the signified is then it still makes no scene. This is a massive problem for religious language. Hume would say that we cannot conclude on what is beyond our universe as it to is beyond our understanding and ability to verify. Even in religion there is an epistemic distance between us and God. There is a physical limit to how much we can come to know about God. No matter what we will never fully be able to comprehend fully what God is. As you can see if we cannot (fully) comprehend what God the Signified is then it makes no logical scene to meaningfully talk about the concept that is God.

Kant
In Kant's Conceptual Schemes he suggests that some signs are universal, and that some concepts are innate, meaning that there are somethings that no matter the experience that humans have a concept of.
This was taken by some theologians to argue that everybody innately has a concept of a divine being.
However
Kant believes that these things that we have innate ideas of aren't actually real and just how we perceive reality as a result it doesn't mean that God exists just we have a concept of what he is, which in turn however would be enough for people like Anselm to prove his existence.

Religious Language 
Religious language or 'God Talk' is being able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent manner. The problem arises when we ask what can meaningfully be said about God ?
The debate over religious language is not concerned with whether God exists or what God is like or why there is evil in the world. The only thing the debate is interested in is working out whether said language actually means anything.

On one side there is the view that we use are reason and our language given to us by God to speak and write about God in a meaningful manner. For example theologian scholars such as Augustine, Aquinas or Anselm.

On the other side there are the logical positivists and those they influence who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don't relate to anything that is meaningful.

What Can we Verify ?

What can we actually meaningfully verify about the world we live in ?

Well according to the philosophical idea of logical positivism the answer is very little .
Logical positivists emerged during the 1920s form a group known as the Vienna circle. Heavily influenced by the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel and the work of Albert Einstein on general and special relativity. A.J Ayer set out the principles of logical positivism in his 1936 book language, truth and logic.
(which is currently on its way to may house off amazon )

The Vienna circle was made up of many forward thinking philosophers (most of whom who were also scientifically trained), mathematicians, social scientists and physicists. One of the key influences of the circle was the destruction wrought by world war one, having witnessed such events. These people were all committed to rebuilding society in way that they deemed proper. The circle focused on the question of how we know what we know.



Interestingly almost all the of the Vienna circle are said to have been socialist and live a area known as 'red Vienna'.

The Verification Principle and Religious Language 
'If a statement is neither analytically nor empirically true verifiable then it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless'
                                   A.J. Ayer
The verification principle stated that if we cannot ever prove a statement to be true then it is meaningless.
When applied to religious language and the question of if we can meaningfully talk about God the verification principle states that religious language is meaningless. This is a result of our inability to ever prove Gods existence empirically or analytically (although theists such as Anselm would argue otherwise )
The verification principle is NOT saying that God does/doesn't exist but rather it is saying that views on theism, atheism or being agnostic have no other meaning than personal importance. This is much like the view of Wittgenstein and language games, to him when people say that 'God does/doesn't exist' all they are saying is that they are playing different language games and debate on the subject is meaningless.

Types of Verification

Strong Verification

This is when a there is no doubt that a metaphysical statement is meaningful. For example a triangle has three sides

Weak Verification 

When there is no absolute proof but there is a strong likely hood of truth. ( Surely this is subjective ? who decides how likely something is to be true) 

Practical Variability

Refers to statements that can be tested in reality. The significance of this is that practical verification allows science to be meaningful. despite the subjectivity of our experience of reality.  

For example it is possible to test the effect of pH on enzyme activity note  however it is harder to test whether life exists on other planets.

The verification principle does not accept the existence of God proven through religious experience as it is impossible to test or recreate the experience as a result also this means that no historical, ethical or scientific laws can be absolutely verified although Ayer allowed that scientific laws have the potential to be one day verified and so are exempt .(Weak Verification )

So What Can We Know ?

According to the verification principle the only statements that we can hold to be meaningful are those which are analytically true or those that can be tested empirically . Statements which we know a-priori are meaningful as they are true by definition (tautologys) for example 'the circle is round'.

(responses to logical positivism coming soon)

(just cleaning up some bits )

would also like to share this link to a bbc podcast on logical positivism.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lbsj3

Start time : 2:43 Tuesday the 11th of November 

Finish :

Record Playing: 'The 59 sound' The Gaslight Anthem 

Location: My room