(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 7 - The Problem of Verification
The Question of Verifiability
Christianity and Judaism have always assumed that their assertions have a cognitive, factual basis.
According to logical positivism, to be able to be either true or false a statement must be meaningful. A statement is meaningful if it has a factual or cognitive meaning. It is meaningful if it is, at least in principle, verifiable.
John Wisdom held that the atheist and theist do not disagree about the empirical facts, but react in different ways to the facts. Under this method, Wisdom held that it is wrong-headed to claim that either is right or wrong.
Santayana held that religions are not true or false, but better or worse.
Wisdom points out that neither theism nor atheism is verifiable.
Antony Flew posed the question, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"
Two Suggested Solutions:
R.M. Hare introduced the notion of bliss in response to Flew. Hare claims that a blink is an unverifiable and non-falsifiable interpretation of one's experience.
A blik is not open to question. It is accepted no matter what the evidence is.
Hare distinguishes between a sane black and an insane blink.
A problem with this is that if bliss are by nature non-verifiableand unfalsifiable they cannot be distinguished from one another.
Basil Mitchell answered Flew that religious beliefs are genuinely factual in nature, but not straight-forwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
While Hare states that nothing can count against a blink, Mitchell maintains that things may count against a religious belief, but that faith bridges the gap.
Mitchell focuses on the similarity between religious and ordinary beliefs.
Mitchell uses the idea of eschatological verification.
The Idea of eschatological verification:
A verification of a factual assertion is different than a logical demonstration of it.
Just because a proposition is in principal verifiable, it does not follow that it will ever be verified.
A proposition may be in principle verifiable, but not in principle falsifiable.
The idea of a continued conscious existence after bodily death is a proposition that is verifiable in principal, but not falsifiable in principle. It may be false, but it cannot be known as a false statement via experience.
The universe as seen by the theists is totally different as the universe the atheists sees because of the notion of eschatological verification.
Some Difficulties and Complications
The notion that it makes sense to speak of continued existence after death is not rendered verifiable by a belief in God.
The continued existence of a dead man in a new universe in a new body does not prove the existence of a loving God.
Our present environment is religiously ambiguous.
There are difficulties in a finite creature claiming to have seen and recognized an infinite creature.
"Exists", "Fact", and "Real"
What does it mean to ask, Does God exist?
This is not a problem for any proponent of non cognitive religious language.
For the theist, the notion of God's existence is factual and thus, problematic.
No comments:
Post a Comment