Flew is essentially arguing that a statement such as ‘there is a gardener’ can only be meaningful if it is a genuine claim about the world. However, it can only be a genuine claim, if the person producing the statement can consider it being wrong, or to put it simply, falsified. Someone who refuses to renounce their faith, no matter what is discovered about the world, is not talking about the world at all. When shown evidence that their statement isn’t true, they add to or and qualify it so that the new evidence no longer rebuts it. An example would be how Christians used to believe in the creation as being literally 6 days, but now most accommodate scientific advances into their faith as well, almost taking a deistic approach to it. This is due to modern cosmology and evolutionary theory causing doubts on original claims. I think Flew makes a reasonable point here because if you have to keep adding new qualifications to a statement every time a new piece of evidence goes against it, then this will essentially keep going on for ever, rendering the initial statement rather meaningless or purposeless. Therefore in that view, the religious believer does die the death of a thousand qualifications.
Richard Hare responds to Flew by producing a parable of his own, known as the parable of the paranoid student. Similar to the person who believes in the invisible gardener, the paranoid student cannot imagine being incorrect. His claim ‘my teachers are out to get me’ is unfalsifiable. This view that the student keeps is called a blik. A blik is a belief that cannot be changed no matter what. However, Hare argues that this belief still remains meaningful, because it has an actual influence on how the student views the world, how he forms other beliefs, and how he lives his life. Although the statement operates very importantly within the students belief system, so that it cannot be falsified, and all the evidence is warped to fit with this belief; the very centrality of the belief means it’s very meaningful. This view is opposite to what Flew argued.
Hence, Hare is arguing that it is possible to agree to a statement that is not falsifiable but which is none the less meaningful. According to Hare we all share some qualities with the paranoid student because most of us have fundamental beliefs or principles on which we base our actions on, and which we will never give up. These beliefs and principles also quite often form the basis for other beliefs, and they are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. I think Hare’s response is fairly successful in opposition to Flew because even though the belief might unfalsifiable, and many qualities may be added to the statement, but just the fact that we hold a “blik” shows that it is meaningful since it can affect our actions and way of life in general.
Furthermore, philosopher Basil Mitchell also criticises Flew, but from a different viewpoint to Hare. He actually disagrees with the view that religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, and similar to Flew and Hare, he produces a parable to make his point. This time the parable is about a resistance leader. Imagine a situation where a country was being invaded and a resistance movement develops to overthrow the occupiers. One night you meet a person who claims to be the resistance leader, and he convinces you to put your trust in him. During a period of a few months, sometimes you see him fighting for the resistance, but sometimes you also see him helping the enemy by handing over resistance members. This is troubling, as there is a worry he might be a traitor, but your trust in him eventually overcomes your concerns and you continue to believe in him. The belief is that the stranger is on your side, even though there is very clear evidence sometimes that the stranger is not on your side, however the trust still remains.
Mitchell argues that this belief in the resistance leader is meaningful, even though you refuse to give it up. However, he does not think that it is a blik because unlike a blik, there are moments where you doubt your own belief or principle. Simply by having this doubt shows that the belief is falsifiable, in other words, you can imagine certain circumstances under which you might give up your belief. Mitchell’s parable reflects the doubt that religious believers sometimes have when they encounter particular sufferings in life. Mitchell believes that these ‘trials of faith’ show that Flew is wrong to think that believers simply deny all evidence that goes against their beliefs. I think that Mitchell’s response is quite good because it seems the better example as to how life would be like for a religious person. There will be moments of doubts, but the idea of religion is to keep the faith. Mitchell’s parable also shows that belief can be falsifiable because of the facts that you might have doubts and hence there will be circumstances where you might give up your belief.
In conclusion, I don’t think that religious believers ‘die a death of a thousand qualifications’ because although religious believers might make many qualifications to the statement ‘God exists’, according to Flew the believers are essentially disregarding the evidence. However, I think Mitchell’s view is better because the idea that religious believers sometimes do have doubts is more plausible, but they normally still keep the faith. Yet, this also shows that the belief is falsifiable because you can imagine circumstances where you would give up your belief. Therefore since it isn’t completely unfalsifiable and unverifiable, then it isn’t meaningless either.