ANTHOLOGY EXTRACT 2 – FLEW AND HARE
ANTHONY FLEW
1. Parable – cannot falsify existence of gardener by sense experience, therefore meaningless
2. Explanation – parable starts as asserton statement of fact/belief) that something gardener)
exists. Then has been qualifed so that it cannot be falsifed, to such an extent that nothing
remains of the original asserton (what remains of your original asserton?” - becomes a
(picture preference” = only meaningful to believer, and it is therefore meaningless) – “dies a
death of a thousand qualifcatons”
3. Theological Uterance – (those who uter such sentences intend them to express assertons”,
e.g. (God loves us”, yet believer will qualify to allow nothing to falsify
4. Assertions –“now to assert that such and such is the case is necessarily equivalent to denying
that such and such is not the case”, e.g. x=y simultaneously denies x =/= y. To
understand/check an asserton we can fnd out what would hypothetcally negate the
statement e.g. x=y is disproven if x=/=y) – (if there is nothing which a putatve asserton
denies then there is nothing which it asserts either, and so it is not really an asserton.”
5. Conclusion – there is nothing that believers will allow to conclusively negate the existence of
God – “no conceivable event….the occurrence of which would be admited by sophistcated
religious people to be a sufcient reason for concluding ‘there wasn’t a God afer all’”
R.M.HARE
1. Parable – lunatc and dons, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, lunatc cannot be
swayed from his beliefs. Lunatccs beliefs cannot be falsifed and are therefore meaningless
according to Flew, BUT there is stll a marked diference between the lunatc and a sane
person, so therefore his belief is not meaningless.
2. Blik = our interpretaton of the world that infuences how we react to it – (blik does not
consist of an asserton or system of them, but nevertheless it is very important to have right
blik” – sane vs insane
3. Car analogy - believes steering will fail = blik not asserton) – stll meaningful as impacts, (I
should never go in a motor car”. Cannot be falsifed – (my blik is compatble with any fnite
number if such tests”
4. Flew – not critcising Flewcs argument, simply the (mistake of the positon which Flew selects
for atack” – should not be interpretng religious statements as asserton but rather as bliks.
5. Atheists – upbringing infuences religion – it is hard for people to know what they really
believe superfcial abandonment of religion is not true disbelief) – “they think they have
abandoned the whole thing”
6. Conclusion – diference between Flew and aarecs parables – (I mind…I am unable to share
the explorer’s detachment” – people have an emotonal connecton to God-talk/ religion, and
therefore it is meaningful, despite being unfalsifable.
ANTHONY FLEW
1. Parable – cannot falsify existence of gardener by sense experience, therefore meaningless
2. Explanation – parable starts as asserton statement of fact/belief) that something gardener)
exists. Then has been qualifed so that it cannot be falsifed, to such an extent that nothing
remains of the original asserton (what remains of your original asserton?” - becomes a
(picture preference” = only meaningful to believer, and it is therefore meaningless) – “dies a
death of a thousand qualifcatons”
3. Theological Uterance – (those who uter such sentences intend them to express assertons”,
e.g. (God loves us”, yet believer will qualify to allow nothing to falsify
4. Assertions –“now to assert that such and such is the case is necessarily equivalent to denying
that such and such is not the case”, e.g. x=y simultaneously denies x =/= y. To
understand/check an asserton we can fnd out what would hypothetcally negate the
statement e.g. x=y is disproven if x=/=y) – (if there is nothing which a putatve asserton
denies then there is nothing which it asserts either, and so it is not really an asserton.”
5. Conclusion – there is nothing that believers will allow to conclusively negate the existence of
God – “no conceivable event….the occurrence of which would be admited by sophistcated
religious people to be a sufcient reason for concluding ‘there wasn’t a God afer all’”
R.M.HARE
1. Parable – lunatc and dons, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, lunatc cannot be
swayed from his beliefs. Lunatccs beliefs cannot be falsifed and are therefore meaningless
according to Flew, BUT there is stll a marked diference between the lunatc and a sane
person, so therefore his belief is not meaningless.
2. Blik = our interpretaton of the world that infuences how we react to it – (blik does not
consist of an asserton or system of them, but nevertheless it is very important to have right
blik” – sane vs insane
3. Car analogy - believes steering will fail = blik not asserton) – stll meaningful as impacts, (I
should never go in a motor car”. Cannot be falsifed – (my blik is compatble with any fnite
number if such tests”
4. Flew – not critcising Flewcs argument, simply the (mistake of the positon which Flew selects
for atack” – should not be interpretng religious statements as asserton but rather as bliks.
5. Atheists – upbringing infuences religion – it is hard for people to know what they really
believe superfcial abandonment of religion is not true disbelief) – “they think they have
abandoned the whole thing”
6. Conclusion – diference between Flew and aarecs parables – (I mind…I am unable to share
the explorer’s detachment” – people have an emotonal connecton to God-talk/ religion, and
therefore it is meaningful, despite being unfalsifable.
