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
An excellent write-up, Ed, with an improved level of spelling, punctuation and grammar - well done (not perfect, yet, though!).
ReplyDeleteA few minor points:
1. You say most believers would accept that Jesus is the Incarnation of God; for the Principle to hold true, it is necessary that all accept this statement, not simply most. Indeed, if they did not, they would not, properly speaking, be believers, as the Incarnation is a foundational belief of Christianity.
2. You missed an opportunity at the end of the same paragraph to mention Hume's position on the verifiability/falsifiability of things outside the universe.