During a 1948 Oxford University Symposium, Flew, Hare, and Mitchell deliberated on the rationality of believing in religion; thus resulting in differing stances on the claim. Compared to his co-discussants, Basil Mitchell’s stance on religious claims is a accommodation between Flew’s and Hare’s arguments because it states that religious statements are assertions (articles of faith). Considering Flew believes that religious statements aren’t genuine assertions and Hare believes that religious statements are unfalsifiable assumptions (Bliks), Mitchell’s stance argues that even though rational considerations can go against faith, the believer will not allow it cause one will never know how much evidence is enough to disprove a religious belief.
…show more content…
For instance, Flew believes that religious statements aren’t genuine assertions because they can’t be falsified. In his parable of an invisible gardener, his skeptic uses provisional hypotheses (which are based solely on experience) to claim that a gardener doesn’t exist, and his believer uses vacuous formulae (where experience isn’t a factor) to claim that the gardener does exist. In response to this parable, Mitchell stated that Flew’s argument was missing a third assertion, articles of faith. Mitchell’s articles of faith conveys the idea that belief is based on trust and confidence. For example, in his parable of the stranger during the resistance movement, Mitchell states that “He [the stranger] is on our side” (Mitchell 255). This quote reveals the idea that even though the stranger exhibits questionable behavior as to which side he is on in the resistance, the partisan in the parable still bestows trust and confidence in the stranger; thus showing that the assertion of articles of faith can not be determinately falsifiable. Similarly, Mitchell’s argument states that one may never know how much evidence is enough to disprove religious belief. Considering Flew’s argument in the parable is that the skeptic wants evidence that proves the gardener exists, Mitchell believes that no one knows when there is enough evidence to overturn religious belief. …show more content…
Considering Flew had two of the three assertions (provisional hypotheses and vacuous formulae), and Hare believed that bliks manage a person’s other beliefs, Mitchell’s claim is a compromise because it contains the third assertion (articles of faith) while stating that a person has a mindset that remains unchanged when something goes against it. In general, Mitchell’s claims are a accommodation between those of his
For instance, Flew believes that religious statements aren’t genuine assertions because they can’t be falsified. In his parable of an invisible gardener, his skeptic uses provisional hypotheses (which are based solely on experience) to claim that a gardener doesn’t exist, and his believer uses vacuous formulae (where experience isn’t a factor) to claim that the gardener does exist. In response to this parable, Mitchell stated that Flew’s argument was missing a third assertion, articles of faith. Mitchell’s articles of faith conveys the idea that belief is based on trust and confidence. For example, in his parable of the stranger during the resistance movement, Mitchell states that “He [the stranger] is on our side” (Mitchell 255). This quote reveals the idea that even though the stranger exhibits questionable behavior as to which side he is on in the resistance, the partisan in the parable still bestows trust and confidence in the stranger; thus showing that the assertion of articles of faith can not be determinately falsifiable. Similarly, Mitchell’s argument states that one may never know how much evidence is enough to disprove religious belief. Considering Flew’s argument in the parable is that the skeptic wants evidence that proves the gardener exists, Mitchell believes that no one knows when there is enough evidence to overturn religious belief. …show more content…
Considering Flew had two of the three assertions (provisional hypotheses and vacuous formulae), and Hare believed that bliks manage a person’s other beliefs, Mitchell’s claim is a compromise because it contains the third assertion (articles of faith) while stating that a person has a mindset that remains unchanged when something goes against it. In general, Mitchell’s claims are a accommodation between those of his