Religous Language
Uploaded by snezana on Jul 08, 2006
Many philosophers have argued against the verification and the falsification criterion of meaning, and its challenge to religious languagee. However the falsification theory in religious language can be considered “meaningless” since true believers exercise faith, but do not allow any evidence to count against their ideas. Criticism of logical positivism came from many philosophers which include; Ayer, Hare, Mitchell, Swinburne and Wittgenstein.
The principle behind the idea of falsification was first suggested by Karl Popper, “Science is more concerned with falsification of hypothesis than with the verification.”(Tillman ,195)
Popper recognized that science did not move from observation to theory but rather the other way round.
The falsification theory isn’t without its criticisms. It has been argued in various ways that theory does not rule religious language to be meaningless. Hare was one such philosopher; he argued that religious statements were never intended as assertions, but alternative ways of looking at the world. Hare illustrates this by argueing against Anthony Flew.
He claims that Flew does not realize that different people have very different standards for verification and falsification. What counts as falsifying evidence for one person might not count for another. In Hare’s terms, not everyone has the same blik. A blik is a frame of reference in terms of which data is interpreted. Hare says: “without a blik there can be no explanation; for it is by our bliks that we decide what is and what is not an explanation.”(Stewart, 229) Hare illustrates this with the parable of the paranoid man.
“A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, “You see, he doesn’t really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?” But the lunatic replies, “Yes, but that was only is diabolical cunning; he’s really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it, I tell you.” However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.”(Stewart, 227)
The paranoid man’s entire frame of reference is paranoid. Any evidence that might count to falsify the claim that dons are all killers simply does not count as evidence in a paranoid’s frame of reference. Many kindly dons...