The falsification principle was originally penned by Karl Popper and was later padded out by Anthony Flew. It is the idea that you cannot convert a religious beliver to not believing with empirical evidence and knowledge because they have a blik, or an unshakeable belief. A blik can occur within a person for many reasons; upbringing or a religious experience are just a couple of reasons. Where the verification principle failed, Popper and Flew stepped in to create a new challenge. Popper wrote the foundation of the principle, but flew went a bit further with it.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either. It’s ones faith that drives someone to believe in him, while Christopher would not be able to have faith and believe because there would be no solid evidence that God exists and he mostly only believes in what he sees, something that is concrete. To Christopher God might be just another fairytale. “People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist.
He cannot fathom that there would be a disconnect. It is this same reasoning that compels him to investigate Martha Corey after Giles talks about her reading. Hale simply cannot see something wrong in an investigation as he believes it is being conducted by flatly religious people. Hale changes in that he is forced to understand that there might be a disconnect in the psyche of individuals. The most spiritual of people might not be the ones that are considered to be so and the ones who are considered to be so might not be.
To those who doubt that assumption he tries to use God as an example of a deceiver, stating that God has the power to deceive our view of the world (reality). This doesn’t make sense to be because if God created us to live then why would he want to deceive us until we die? But then an idea comes to mind that maybe it could
Bill Maher is a smart individual but an agnostic can only promote what they know which means not very much when it comes to religion. Bill Maher said “Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.” To me having a meaning and a reason to
For example, on Damascus Road, Saint Paul’s religious experience transformed his moral outlook. It would appear that all religious experiences demonstrate a revelation of truth, but one could argue that this does not indicate they are true. As Freud would argue that religious experiences are a way of externalising deep, repressed personal truths. In such a view, religious experiences are unverifiable and cannot be thought to prove the existence of God, as they are merely manifestations of the human subconsciousness. A transient experience short, and cannot be sustained for a long duration of time.
After reading this text, I found myself wondering exactly where I go when I am dealing with an individual who does not know for sure where they stand. Although this is the basis for Entwistle explaining how to implement this integration, the lack of said knowledge would make this attempt difficult at best. There seems to be areas within these two ideologies of science and providence that are blurred. This can be seen in the five models of integration that Entwistle speaks of. In particular, when speaking of Spies, the lines are not as clear as they do not accept the tenets of Christianity but see activities such as prayer or forgiveness as useful to the secular world.
Using the scripture to make political arguments is trashy and unfair. As a Speech and Debate acc. veteran, I’ve had personal experience with religiously inclined ‘support’. As a non-Christian, I felt disadvantaged and nervous to make a comeback because I didn’t want to offend anyone. But hey, before I go off on a nostalgic rant, let me back up.
“The Enemies of Reason” “There are two ways of looking at the world, through faith and superstition, or through the rigors of logic, observation, and evidence through reason.” I believe this statement is true since there are those who believe things such as superstition and psychics can help you through life and there are those who base life off of hard evidence and facts. Richard Dawkins does not completely understand why people put faith in mediation and astrology. They are ways of having hope and a way to just relax because we are constantly stressed. People don’t have all the answers to life, so they turn to superstition and parapsychology to make decisions. We have done studies, such as the Wiseman study in Chapter 2, stating that psychics and everyday students have nearly the same results at predicting statements, yet people still pay to have their “minds read” or “predict the future.” It is fine to choose to believe in the irrational, but accepting money is another story.