A Response to Anthony Flew's The Falsification Debate

by Evan Stewart, June 21, 2006

Source: Anthony Flew, “The Falsification Debate”, in Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, 6th ed., David Stewart, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 212-214.

After reading Anthony Flew’s argument for the validation of meaningful assertions by qualification of falsification, I initially concluded that Flew was making the direct assertion “God does not exist”. I argued that the method in which Flew attempts to justify any assertion that God exists as illogical and meaningless, by way of falsification, actually acted in the same manner to conclude his own assertion that God does not exist to be equally meaningless and illogical.

However, after re-examining Flew’s argument, I conclude that Flew does not make any direct assertions about his own belief. What he is doing is merely asking questions and also defining his understanding of the qualifications needed to establish what is and is not a meaningful assertion. He argues, “To assert that such and such is the case is necessarily equivalent to denying that such and such is not the case”; this is his definition of assertions. I am confused, however, as to whether Flew considers his qualifications for genuine assertion to be an assertion or if he considers this something else entirely. I initially inferred from the context that this statement was an assertion, but I think that if Flew thought so as well he would have mentioned some rule of exception for making an assertion that cannot be falsified, since his assertion would be such. If this is not an assertion, then I uphold that no direct assertion is made in his argument. What ever the case may be the validation of his qualifications as being assertive or not is trivial and distracting from the central issue. Let us assume that the qualification is not an assertion in and of itself but more of a statement of fact. Therefore, I see no direct assertions made in his argument. Rather, I see direct questions begging for explanation. He asks, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?”

Flew seems to be confused by his own understanding of what constitutes valid, meaningful, and applicable statements of reality and truth and so he honestly inquires how belief in God can be reasonable since the theist has constructed an answer that is impenetrable to any counter argument or probing investigation; death by a thousand qualifications in other words. He seems to question the validity of a reasonable answer affirming God’s existence because he understands any supportive evidence in the positive to be more subjective and in the end all qualifications defending God can as well culminate in the answer, “I believe in God because I believe in God.” Obviously, this answer appears to be irrational because no supportive evidence other than mere personal opinion is given for such a powerful and life effecting statement. So again, it seems that Flew does not make any direct assertions but only states his confusion concerning how faith can be considered reasonably.

However, although no direct assertion is made by Flew, there lies beneath his questions an indirect assertion that theistic belief is irrational. This is certainly clear and unarguable. His concluding question assumes, by context of the argument, that the only answer that will be given in response is one that will rest on a thousand qualifications. I do not infer this because I believe Flew to be acting strictly antagonistically towards theism, but because I believe that an answer affirming God can only be given within the context of a thousand qualifications, as Flew explains. Obviously, the traditional understanding of God, and more specifically the Christian teaching about God, states that God is omnipotent, omni benevolent, and omniscient. Therefore, if God is the perfect being that which nothing can conquer then of course any traditional theist will argue that nothing can over power God or prove that He does not exist. Any objection given will certainly be countered by what Flew considers unending qualifications. Obviously, Flew assumes that no other reasonable answer will most likely be given, but he asks honestly and waits to be proven wrong. However, the only valid, positive answer will or can be founded upon a thousand qualifications. If God is all loving, then no matter how much evil exists in the world God is still all loving. God’s character is not determined by the traditional theist according to what happens in the world. God’s character is dependent only upon God’s character and God’s character is defined by Him through divine revelation via Holy Scripture. If there is pain, if there is suffering, if there is chaos and disorder; so be it. God’s character remains constant. This is the answer that any traditional/Christian theist will answer and it certainly will be considered by Flew as being built and protected by qualifications and therefore at most illogical and at least meaningless.

As for his indirect assertion, it is clearly offered by his question. By challenging other minds to disprove his hypothesis he states, by implication, “I think theistic claims of any kind are illogical because they are not based upon reasonable assertions and therefore are meaningless. If I am wrong, then please show me my error.” His very question contains the assertions that he makes; the idea of God is meaningless and therefore God cannot be known or God does not exist. To argue that this alleged assertion is not present within his argument is to misunderstand his argument. So an assertion exists; the assertion exists indirectly.

Now I go back to my original conclusion that Flew’s argument does not do anything for the questions concerning God’s existence and the belief in God. For, if the direct assertion “God exists” does not stand as meaningful, then certainly the same conclusion must apply for the assertion “God does not exist”, and this is the exact assertion that Flew makes indirectly. If one still argues that Flew has indeed made no assertion of this kind, then I have to ask, what is the point of his questions and argument? If Flew is not arguing that “God does not exist” or at least that “God cannot be known to exist” by method of falsification, then what in the world is he trying to say in his argument; that some beliefs that are held by individuals are irrational? Of course some beliefs are irrational. If this is Flew’s goal by arguing the method of falsification, then he only concludes a fact that is already known to any person who can think. If no assertion is made by Flew, either directly or indirectly, then this argument is a waste of time for him and the reader.

Flew has offered nothing new or revealing. He is asking the same question that the Israelites asked of Moses and that the skeptics asked of Jesus, “If God really exists then show us a sign; give us physical proof”. Furthermore, since Flew must be making the assertion that God does not exist, his method for determining the validity of theological belief soundly concludes that his own assertion is false. I assume that some may still challenge that Flew’s personal beliefs are not affected in the least because he is not directly making any argument in support of his belief. He is only offering qualifications for rational belief. However, if the atheist claim cannot be rightly judge by this same theory of falsification then this whole argument is again proven to be useless and irrational for in order to challenge the validity of any belief there must be a contrary or opposite belief. Since he argues that theism is irrational he must necessarily be concluding the opposite of this assertion; disbelief in God is rational. However, this assertion is also proven false by Flew’s own qualifications for valid and meaningful assertions because any person who disbelieves in God will offer the same reasons for belief of nonexistence even when the evidence suggesting God’s existence is presented. Therefore, Flew’s concluding 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?” must equally be turned about to the skeptic, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a proof of the love of, or the existence of, God?”.

The skeptic’s answers will be similar to the theist’s answers when considered by Flew’s method of falsification; the meaning and validity of belief dies by a thousand qualifications. In the end, this method of falsification, although seemingly valid for the empirical sciences, does not do anything for the question of God and faith. The belief that is brought into the argument will most likely be the belief that is kept by the end of the argument if the belief is held strongly. This is not to say that no persuasion can or ever has occurred. Certainly a person’s theistic/atheistic belief can be persuaded by some reasonable argument, some deception, or by some personal, or unexplainable experience. A countless number of people have converted to one new belief system or another and surely every conversion is caused by some kind of persuasion, whether it is true or false, rational or irrational. Flew is seemingly trying to justify his own disbelief in God by asking for the proof of God. He does not assume that a valid rational answer can be given. If he thought that a rational answer could be given then he would have believed long ago. For one reason, the existence of theistic belief indicates the existence of God. If the supernatural is not real, then why do so many people claim to have experienced the supernatural? This, of course, may only indicate the existence of a supernatural power and not any specific God. What about the claims of Christianity and that of Jesus Christ? A man claiming to be God foretold his physical death and resurrection and said that this will prove that he is in fact God. If this is not acceptable proof or at least an indication for the belief in God I do not know what is. Of course, any skeptic will say that, in the case of Jesus, he truly did not physically die and rise again for this is impossible; no man can die by crucifixion and be expected to be physically restored and revived three days later. Is this objection not a kind of qualification of which Flew argues against?

In the end Flew seems to argue, again, what is already known; religious belief demands faith. Theological belief cannot be fully proven by way of empirical rationale, but it can surely be supported by reason and rational evidence. Mr. Flew apparently wants to find a way to believe in God without having the required faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand when determining the validity of any belief because without one of these a person cannot have genuine and rational belief. Belief can be irrational, like believing that I am flying like a bird when I am clearly standing firm on the ground, or belief can be rational when it is supported by rational evidence, like the physical death and resurrection of Jesus being supported by the bold return of the eleven apostles after they cower and hide when they thought that Jesus was dead and never coming back. Obviously, these men had everything to lose, were certainly sane enough to know what opposition awaited their return, to know that they must defy the Roman empire, and sacrifice their lives and possibly their families. To argue that they came back to defend a story they all knew to be false is a discredit to logical reason.

In the end, the debate over falsification does not do much of anything for or against the argument concerning the existence of God or religious belief in general. Anthony Flew enters the argument with a disbelief in God and attempts to secure his own belief by creating a smoke screen to divert all questions to the theist. As stated above, I do not think that Flew formulated his argument with the sole purpose to antagonize the theist. He is not merely reverting to name calling and saying, “I am smart and the theist is stupid!” However, he is attempting to validate his disbelief by way of an argument that calls his belief into question. The only contributing information that he offers to the debate concerning God is simply, “Genuine belief must stand on reason”. Unfortunately, Flew seems to think that belief cannot stand on reason and is therefore meaningless and irrational. However, belief requires faith and reason can only take a person to the threshold of faith and reason can only encourage a belief and not, in the sense that Flew argues, prove a belief. Anthony Flew poses an honest question and an honest argument that many can identify with. Nevertheless, his questions are not new and do not add much to the disbelief or belief in the existence of God. Both belief and disbelief require faith.