The Falsification Principle

[Chris]

Speaking of specialized word coinage, I'm not sure what the OP is even about. I've never heard of this falsification theory. I know of Popper's but that doesn't appear be what you're referring to. It sounds something like Logical Positivism but that has been dead for a century.

Hmm, yea, logical positivism would say there's a logical/reasonable way to determine all truth. Right into Wittgenstein who believed the language of logic was more real than reality.

Popper is said to have said "I killed logical positivism."

Back to logical positivism, even though it's not the topic. I'm listening to Peterson interview Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwW9QV5Ulmw) and they discuss the contribution of modernity in the form of the scientific method, how even not so bright individualism can follow the rules and still make contributions to the accumulation of knowledge. I think logical positivism entails the supposition that by following these rules and the rules of language and logic that man can explain it all. Postmodernism, Hicks explains, has two components. One is skepticism, skepticism that such meta-narratives of method, language, logic can find all the answers. And this I think we in all out discussions of science have to agree on, it cannot. Science is tentative, incomplete, and probabilistic; falsification denies the possibility of proof. The other contribution of postmodernism is not so valuable, and that's it's own meta-narrative of critical theory, which cannot stand up to skepticism itself, ouroboric.

[Mister D]

Does God Exist by Hans Kung contains a historical narrative on Logical Positivism. IIRC correctly, the main problem, as first pointed out by Popper, is that its tenets destroy the very possibility of scientific knowledge because many scientific propositions are not empirically verifiable. They would have to be rejected as meaningless.

[JAG]

As many are probably aware, I am a practicing Christian.

I am also, however, a very logical person. (My wife says that she has never known anyone else so analytical as I am.)

Given the latter point, I would like to discuss the question of whether religion trips all over the so-called Falsification Principle. (To anyone unfamiliar with the finer points of logic, the Falsification Principle is simply a test of whether something can either be proven or disproven; if it is subject to neither, it fails the test--and is, therefore, illogical.)

And simply relying upon a "leap of faith" is nothing better than a weak attempt to circumvent this principle.

Comments?

My view:
Christianity is a faith and if the need for faith was removed from Christianity, that
would totally wreck-destroy Christianity. So then Christian Apologetics is, in that
sense, self-defeating, that is, if TOTALLY successful in logically proving Christianity
true beyond a reasonable doubt --then it would have destroyed the very thing it
seeks to uphold and support.

If you will, take a look at one of my OP's on this subject. Many thinks.
Christianity Is A FAITH And Not Based On Empiricism And Rationalism (thepoliticalforums.com)
JAG

[]

PS
Demonstrate Christianity to be true at the certainty level
of 2 + 2 = 4 and Christianity dies stone cold dead (see link up there).

[]

[pjohns]

Christian Apologetics is, in that sense, self-defeating, that is, if TOTALLY successful in logically proving Christianity true beyond a reasonable doubt --then it would have destroyed the very thing it seeks to uphold and support.

How in the world could it be "self-defeating" to prove Christianity true, beyond any reasonable doubt?

(For the record, my favorite apostle has always been Thomas--despite Jesus' rebuke of him--since he would not go the route of mere blind faith. And neither will I.)

[JAG]

How in the world could it be "self-defeating" to prove Christianity true, beyond any reasonable doubt?

(For the record, my favorite apostle has always been Thomas--despite Jesus' rebuke of him--since he would not go the route of mere blind faith. And neither will I.)

Christianity Is A Faith And Not An Intellectual Philosophical System
Based Upon Rationalism And Empiricism.
By JAG

Start quote.
"Henry Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside the
determination of reason. God could not possibly have intended that
reason should be the faculty to lead us to faith, for faith cannot
hang indefinitely is suspense while reason cautiously weighs and
reweighs arguments.

`The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to God is by
means of the heart, not by means of the intellect . . .What is the
basis of faith? Dodwell answers that it is the faith-producing work
of the Holy Spirit . . .

Now Alvin Plantinga . . .

Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological
rationalism. Plantinga maintains that belief in God and in the
central doctrines of Christianity is both rational and warranted
wholly apart from any evidential foundations for belief . . .

Then William Lane Craig says . . .

I think that Dodwell and Plantinga are correct that, fundamentally,
the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating
witness of God's Holy Spirit."
End quote

Source:
Reasonable Faith
by William Lane Craig
pages 35, 39, 43

Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig are considered to be
Christendom's top Christian apologists.

____________


JAG Writes:
Christianity is a FAITH.

The word FAITH occurs hundreds and hundreds of times in the Bible
and is presented as being absolutely essential to sustaining
the Christian FAITH.

So?

So demonstrate with empiricism and logic that Christianity is true
at the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 and you then no longer have to
exercise FAITH in God.

It does NOT require any FAITH to believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

These 5 Bible verses below would no longer be needed and
would no longer be true.

■ "without faith it is impossible to please God"

■ "for by grace are you saved through faith"

■ "he that comes to God must believe that He
exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him"

■ "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"

■ God gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him shall
not perish but have eternal life

■ And the HUNDREDS of other Bible verses that demand faith
would no longer be needed or be true.

Demonstrate with empiricism that Christianity is true at the
certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 and then you would have this:

He that comes to God need NOT exercise faith because we
now know, based upon empirical evidence that rises to the
certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4, that God exists. It is just as
certain as is the fact that New York City exists.

No faith is needed to believe that New York City exists.

So?

So . . .

Eliminate FAITH from Christianity and Christianity has just been
destroyed and wrecked.

■ "for by grace are you saved through faith" Ephesians 2:8

■ "without faith it is impossible to please God" Hebrews 11:6

■ "God gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him shall
not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16 --- Its impossible
to eliminate the need for Christendom's core Bible verse
John 3:16 without wrecking and destroying Christendom.


____________



Here are a couple of quotes that readers may find interesting:

(1) " . . . the role of rational argumentation in knowing Christianity to
be true is the role of a servant. A person knows Christianity is true
because the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while arguments and
evidence can be used to support this conclusion, they cannot
legitimately overrule it . . ." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable
Faith, page 51

(2) ". . .I'd say that with most people there's no need to use
apologetics at all . . . " __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith,
page 57


_______________



Note: My Opening Post does NOT say that Christian Apologetics is not
useful and needed. Christian Apologetics IS useful and IS needed ---
but Christian Apologetics can NOT eliminate from Christianity the
necessity to exercise faith in God

However the opening Post does NOT advocate for Fideism.
The Opening Post makes one {1} main point --- that faith
cannot be eliminated from Christianity without destroying
Christianity.

"Strict Fideists assign no place to reason in discovering or
understanding fundamental tenets of religion. For them
blind faith is supreme as the way to certitude and
salvation."__off the web

Again . . .
I do not argue for Fideism. There are some evidences to support
the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, but these evidences
must be evaluated on the basis of Probability and Plausibility which
are subjective and are saturated with our human biases, prejudices,
and presuppositions. Nonetheless these kinds of arguments are valuable
to many people.

"Come let us reason together says the Lord"__Isaiah 1:18 KJV


________


I post all the above as "food for thought" --- each reader can
draw his own conclusions regarding how much importance
he puts upon rational argumentation to support Christianity.

For those inclined to rational argumentation:
Here are Peter Kreeft's 20 Arguments for The Existence Of God.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-mo...-existence.htm


JAG

[]

[LWW]

And what, exactly, are "non-overlapping majesteria"? (I tried to look up "majesteria" in both Dictionary.com the the Merriam-Webster online dictionary; but neither contained the word.)



That is an interesting--and well-thought-out--response.

But to assert that "Religion doesn't purport to be scientific. It's spiritual*, science is entirely materialistic," is essentially to say that it is immune from the Falsification Principle.

And that sounds like just another way of taking the "leap of faith," stated above.



What?

The use of the scientific method is not falsifiable?

Then what is?

Different areas of inquiry.

One’s inquiry is how, the other is why.

[Mister D]

How in the world could it be "self-defeating" to prove Christianity true, beyond any reasonable doubt?

(For the record, my favorite apostle has always been Thomas--despite Jesus' rebuke of him--since he would not go the route of mere blind faith. And neither will I.)

It does appear that it would eliminate faith (which I would define as trust) but would it not also eliminate human freedom? Would we not be "enslaved to a miracle" as Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitior suggests in Brothers Karamazov?