Question 10
Study the passage below and answer the questions which follow:
THEOLOGY AND FALSIFICATION
The challenge, it will be remembered, ran like this. Some theological utterances seem to, and are intended
to, provide explanations or express assertions. Now an assertion, to be an assertion at all, must claim that
things stand thus and thus; and not otherwise. Similarly, an explanation, to be an explanation at all, must
explain why this particular thing occurs; and not something else. Those last clauses are crucial. And yet
sophisticated religious people — or so it seemed to me — are apt to overlook this, and tend to refuse to
allow, not merely that anything actually does occur, but that anything conceivably could occur, which
would count against their theological assertions and explanations. But in so far as they do this their
supposed explanations are actually bogus, and their seeming assertions are really vacuous.
(The Philosophy of Religion, ed. Basil Mitchell, OUP, 1971)
(a) Clarify what is meant by ‘assertion’.
(3 marks)
(b) Clarify what is meant by ‘explanation’.
(3 marks)
(c) Why does the author say ‘Those last clauses are crucial’?
(5 marks)
(d) On what grounds could the author argue that religious people tend to refuse to allow that anything
conceivably could occur which would count against their claims?
(6 marks)
(e) Identify and discuss two criticisms which could be raised against the argument presented in this
passage.
(8 marks)
Some boards may offer a gobbet of this kind, although It may not be compulsory for you to answer it. You
may find such questions unappealing, as they are quite prescriptive in their demands and you may prefer
greater freedom in answering on favourite topics. Structuring the question is a good source of help for
those who like more direction, however, and this is a good example of a question in which you are not
allowed to wander off — it makes very precise demands of you. The breakdown of marks also makes clear
that you will be wasting your time if you write screeds for (a) and (b); on the other hand, you will be doing
yourself a disservice if you write the same amount for (e) and for (a). Other gobbets may be little more than
stimuli for you to produce much the same kind of essay that you would have written without the passage
and are simply divided into two or three longer Questions. It is not to be expected that you will know where
a passage comes from in a question of this kind, but if you do, don’t be afraid to say so. This passage comes
from Anthony Flew’s conclusion to the University debate between Flew, Hare and Mitchell on the problem
of falsifying theological statements, reprinted on pp. 13—22 of The Philosophy of Religion.
Answer
(a) An assertion is a statement that something is perceived to be the case, for example This table is round
Such an assertion denies that the table is square and affirms its roundness. We know what it would take for
the assertion to be shown to be false and what it takes to prove it to be true. In this sense, assertions are
cognitive, that is they are intended to make claims that can be proved true or false and, unlike noncognitive language, they do not serve some other function. In the case of religious language, Flew remarks
that when believers make such statements they usually intend them to be assertions, not wishes or moral
commands but statements that it is the case that God exists or that he loves humankind or is to be
experienced in the world. To be meaningful, an assertion must be the equivalent to denying that something
is not the case. Thus, when believers assert that God exists, they are also claiming that it is not true that God
does not exist.
(b) Flew considers talk about God to be an explanation in so far as the believer uses it to explain why
certain things about the world are the case. For example, ‘God’s love is an inscrutable love’ is an
explanation of why God can apparently allow a child to die of an incurable illness. In another example,
when attention is drawn to the lack of empirical proof for the existence of God, the believer explains that
this is so because God is inaudible, intangible and invisible. Such explanations, Flew claims, are used when
a believer’s assertions are in jeopardy. The assertion ‘God loves us’ is threatened by terminal illness, and
the believer either has to withdraw the assertion or find an explanation for it. An explanation can enable the
believer to go on believing in the assertion, although the awkward circumstances have not necessarily
changed The assertion has, however, now been qualified, and Flew argues that a qualified assertion is as
good as no assertion at all
(c) The ‘last clauses’ are crucial because Flew criticises the tendency of believers to use assertions and
explanations without allowing that anything could happen to cause them to withdraw the explanation or
assertion, accepting that the assertion was not true after all, or that their explanation did not satisfactorily
explain the circumstances. If ‘God exists’ is to be a meaningful assertion, there must be something that
believers could claim would cause them to admit that God did not exist after all, but if they cannot say what
would count against their assertion, then the assertion has no substance. If an explanation for God’s
apparent lack of love or lack of action becomes increasingly s complex, then the believer has caused his or
her assertion to ‘die the death of a thousand qualifications’.
The believer has explained that God has seemingly allowed a child to die because ‘God’s thoughts are
higher than human thoughts’, for example However, in so doing, he or she has so qualified the original
assertion that God loves us that it now means something else. Flew maintains that an assertion and an
explanation should therefore be able to stand alone without qualification and mean nothing less than they
were originally intended to mean.
(d) To a certain extent, Flew is correct identifying this tendency amongst religious believers. Because belief,
by its very nature, is based on the unseen and the unheard, it is vulnerable to attack from that which is
empirical. An earthquake which kills thousands of people, a vicious rape and murder, a cruel disease
which strikes in the prime of life, the collapse of a relationship, all are harsh realities which do not just
affect non-believers. The most committed believers are as likely as non-believers to face such jolts to their
faith and their perception of the world. Many believers therefore feel faced with a stark choice. They either
abandon their faith altogether, drawing the conclusion that the evidence is such that God cannot exist, or
they refuse to allow the changed circumstances to permit them to reevaluate their position. Such reevaluation does not necessarily mean that they will ultimately reach the conclusion that there is no God or
that he does not care, but it can enable them to reach a deeper level of understanding about God and their
relationship with him. However, Flew identifies those believers who, fearing that re-evaluation will cause
them to abandon their faith, choose instead to reduce their religious assertions to vacuous formulae’
(Mitchell’s phrase) which reassure them but make no difference to life or to faith. ‘God loves us’ becomes
‘We cannot understand the nature of God’s love for us.’ What value, critics ask, has such love? R. M. Hare
also identified this characteristic amongst believers, but called their religious assertions ‘bliks’. A blik is a
view of the world to which the believer holds fast, and no evidence can be used to count against it. Unlike
Flew, however, Hare maintains that a blik is meaningful, because it makes a difference to the way believers
live their lives.
(e) Flew’s analysis of the believer’s apparent refusal to allow anything to count against his or her belief in
God seems to assume that anything that appears bad or painful must count against the existence of God. He
demands that believers scrutinise their faith whenever something happens that does not automatically
support their conviction that ‘God loves us’ This implies that God is obliged to permit only good things to
happen to a believer and must behave like an overprotective parent who seeks to shield her child from
anything that might harm him. This is evidently not the case. God’s love is not a guarantee against disaster,
although believers may claim that the popular perception of it is that it should be. More often, it is the nonbeliever or semi-committed believer who asks ‘How could God have allowed this to happen?’ Rather, the
believer argues, God’s love is a means of facing disaster; his desire for humans is that they should grow into
well-developed adults, spiritually and morally as well as physically Situations which enhance and develop
our character are often those which are initially the most challenging to our faith and hope.
Furthermore, Flew appears to have a rather cynical view of believers. He claims that ‘sophisticated religious
people’ — whoever they may be — are just as guilty (presumably as unsophisticated’ religious people) of
allowing nothing to count against their belief in God, and of being unprepared to examine the nature of God
and their faith in him. Undoubtedly, there are such believers whose faith is simplistic and who piously
murmur ‘It’s God’s will’ whenever something unfortunate takes place. It is possible to argue, however, that
these are not true believers, but rather men and women who are seeking a reassuring prop which apparently
makes sense of — or makes allowances for — everything that does or does not take place
Flew would perhaps be less cynical if he encountered believers whose faith was a living reality. It is
possible to recognise that God’s love for humanity, his providential care for the world and his concern for
the individual are not a panacea against all ills, but rather a challenging, exciting and life-changing reality
which enables believers to face the harshness of the world, as well as its beauty, in the confidence that the
final victory has already been won.
Stimulus-response questions of this kind are not easy options. As you will have observed, they demand a
very thorough knowledge of the issues: those candidates who tackle them because they think they don’t
need to know anything do conspicuously badly! However, they are a good opportunity for you to show your
knowledge and skills in answering the question as it is set and, for this reason, if you recognise the passage
and are familiar with the issues, they could be a good choice for you. Related questions would obviously
necessitate reproducing a number of long passages here, so instead use your past papers — remember to
ask your teacher for these if you haven’t yet done so — and see the range of passages that have been set for
the last four or five years. On the same topic as this passage, however, is the following question:
Do religious claims truly die ‘the death of a thousand qualifications’?