However, philosopher David Hume critiques arguments from analogy, writing thirty years before Paley. One of the main criticisms he makes is that we have no experience of world making. We can only recognize that certain sort of objects, such as machines, have intelligent designers because we’ve had some form or experience, either direct or indirect, of such objects being designed or manufactured. So it is only through observation of the way in which an object like a watch, for example, is produced in our world, that we understand that they require a designer. But if we never had any experience of its manufacture or design, then we would never be able to suppose that an object such as a watch actually was designed. Hume’s point acts as a criticism to the argument from analogy because he is essentially saying that to know what has brought about something, we need to physically see it being brought about. Therefore unless we actually see a universe coming into existence and experience that event, then we can’t reasonably claim that we know whether our own universe has actually been made or not. Hence in Hume’s view the religious view cannot be defended as a way of seeing the world because the religious perspective involves a creator or the world, yet we’ve never actually experience the creator making this world or any other worlds.
In addition to Hume, In Flew’s adaption of John Wisdoms parable of the invisible gardener, he tries to show that the religious view cannot be defended as a way of seeing the world. Unlike in Wisdom’s version of the parable, Flew’s skeptic (who doesn’t see any evidence of a gardener) views the claim that there is a gardener as a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Since they don’t see the gardener visiting the garden, the skeptic reckons there probably isn’t a gardener. However, his companion suggests that the gardener must come at night instead. So the two of the stay up all night keeping watch, however no gardener is spotted. Again the skeptic takes this as proof there isn’t a gardener. However, the believer then suggests that the gardener must be invisible. So then put up an electric fence, and also guard it with sniffer dogs, but still no evidence was found of a gardener sneaking in a tending to the land. Yet the believer continues to believe that there is a gardener, but now he claims that not only is the gardener invisible, but is also intangible and odorless. The skeptic eventually gives up and asks the believer how the claim that there is an “intangible, odorless, gardener’, differs from the claim that there is ‘no’ gardener at all. Regardless of any evidence shown to the believer, against the gardener, the believer maintains their belief. Each time the gardener isn’t found, the believer simply modifies their belief so that it isn’t falsifiable.
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. Therefore, in Flew’s view the religious view cannot be defended as a way of seeing the world because the religious believer essentially ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications’. No matter what proof against the religious view is given to them, the religious believer simply just qualifies the evidence.
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. Therefore for Hare, the religious view can be defended as a way of seeing the world because there are certain beliefs, such as religious views, that we keep no matter what evidence there is against it. Also, since this affects the way we live our life, consequently it is also a way of seeing the world.
Furthermore, philosopher Basil Mitchell also criticizes 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. Therefore, similar to Hare, Mitchell also believes that religious views can be defended as a way of seeing the world. However, Mitchell differs from Hare in that he accepts that sometimes we can have doubts about the religious view, but since they still remain meaningful, they are a way of seeing the world.
Wittgenstein however argued that there was no such thing as ‘the’ meaning of a word or sentence because there are so many various ways in which language can be meaningful. He rejected the idea that a single theory of meaning was possible. The different uses of language are activities that take place in different social contexts, which Wittgenstein termed ‘language games’. He meant ‘game’ in the sense that language use is an activity that is governed by certain rules, and these rules vary depending on the context. For example, the particular rules that govern the use of the word ‘experience’ are very different in science, than it is when used in a religious context. Wittgenstein argued that it was a mistake to think that one use of a word was better than or more important than another. Therefore for Wittgenstein, he claimed that to understand religious statements, you need to be part of the religious language game. If we are not immersed in the religious ‘form of life’, or if we don’t share those beliefs, or use the concepts in a regular and familiar way, then we will be unable to understand those religious statements. Hence, for Wittgenstein religious views can be seen as a way of seeing the world because the language games which we use to express religious views are a way of expressing things in the world in a religious perspective.
In conclusion, the religious view can be defended as a way of seeing the world through a number of ways. Through Paley’s design argument view you can see the world from a religious viewpoint because there are so many indicators in the natural world that indicate to a greater being, and through a religious perspective, this being is God. In addition, as defended similarly by Hare and Mitchell, there are certain beliefs, such as religious views, that we keep no matter what evidence there is against it. Sometimes we may accept the existence of such evidence; however we still keep our faith and perceive the world from a religious perspective. Finally, as shown by Wittgenstein’s language games, religious believers express words from a religious perspective through following the rules of these ‘language games’, hence defending the claim that religious views can also be a way of seeing the world.