Anthology: Flew, Mitchell and Hare

• explain Flew's parable of the gardener and how he uses it as a support for falsification

  2 people see a plot with flowers and weeds; one thinks there's a gardener and one doesn't, but they never see one. they set traps to try to find the 'invisible' gardener but there's no evidence, however, the believer still maintains the gardener's existence. Sceptic asks 'What's the difference between this and no gardener at all?'

  - uses parable to claim religious statements are not assertions and believers refuse to accept evidence against their view, making religious statements meaningless
• explain what Flew means by the death of a thousand qualifications and what are some of his examples


  - a process of reducing an assertion to a different status

  - occurs as believer won't let any challenges infiltrate the statement until it's no longer an assertion and is meaningless (don't allow for empirical evidence)

  - assertion has died death of a thousand qualifications

  - e.g. 'God has a plan', 'God loves us like a father loves his children' - these look like assertions but are expressions of wishes (endemic evil of theological utterance.
• what is Flew's concept of falsification

  - to make an assertion is equivalent to denying the opposite of the assertion

  - you must consider what counts against the assertion and be open to criticism; if it denies nothing, it asserts nothing

  - this is why religious statements are meaningless
• how does Flew apply the death of a thousand qualifications to religious assertions


  - uses expample of "God loves us like a father loves his children". But, when a child dies of cancer, believers make qualifications, e.g. Gods love is 'an inscrutable love'

  - what would have to occur to negate God's love/existence, e.g. death of son in Benny Hinn documentary
• explain Hare's parable of the Mad Don

  a lunatic is convinced everyone's trying to kill him, and no matter who he's introduced to, he maintains his conviction

  - the lunatic doesn't assert anything (as Hare agrees that at times believers don't let anything count against their beliefs) but his belief is still meaningful as it means something to the lunatic; meaning doesn't come for empirical verification/falsification
• what is Hare's concept of a blik

  a strong conviction (belief/fear) whether rational/irrational, wrong/right, which has an impact on our lives, e.g. being afraid of car crashes

  empirical evidence doesn't affect bliks or change people's perspectives
• how does Hare criticse Flew's approach to religious language

  - without our blinks, we would have no explanation, as it's our bliks which decide what is and isn't an explanation

  - religious statements aren't scientific, they're based on faith which is entirely different and which you don't empirically test

  - criticises Flew's use of parable of gardener as Flew only looks at assertions in a scientific manner, and ignores emotion
• how does Hare explain the non-cognitive nature of religious opinions

  - religion isn't based on unchangeable truths; people have similar experiences but interpret them differently based on their bliks

  - religious beliefs change usually due to a change from within the individual not empirical evidence
• explain Mitchell's criticism of Flew's 'death of a thousand qualifications'


  - theologians don't deny that things count against religious statements, but don't let them count decisively against it, meaning religious statements are meaningful assertions

  - this is due to faith
• explain Mitchell's parable of the partisan and the stranger

  - Partisan = believer and stranger = God

  - sometimes he appears to work with you and sometimes against you; faith is sometimes tested but empirical evidence isn't needed
• how is Mitchell's parable different from Hare's

  - Hare says something is meaningful if it impacts on your life even if you don't allow anything to count against it

  - Mitchell argues something is meaningful if you have faith in it and argues it should still be reasonable, unlike the mad don
• Cognitivist view: religious statements are intended to be taken literally as true or false
• Non-cognitivist view: religious language is not to be taken literally as true or false
• AJ Ayer's verification principle

  States that a statement only has meaning if it is either an analytic truth or empirically verifiable

  Religious language like "God answers my prayers" and "God exists" are not analytic truths or empirically verifiable

  According to Ayer, religious language is meaningless
• Anthony Flew's Invisible Gardener analogy

  Anthony Flew's Invisible Gardener analogy argues that religious

  language, like "God exists," is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless

  Compares the existence of God to the existence of an invisible gardener in a jungle clearing

  Claims that religious believers accept no observations count as evidence against belief in God, making it unfalsifiable and meaningless
• R.M. Hare's bliks

  states that religious statements are basic fundamental beliefs that are not empirically testable

  Uses the example of a paranoid student to explain bliks

  Argues that bliks are unfalsifiable but still meaningful to the person who holds them

  Religious language, like "God exists," may be unfalsifiable but still meaningful to believers