Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Flew (parable of the gardener), Hare (the lunatic student and the…
Flew (parable of the gardener)
In the parable, a man claims that there must be a gardener in the jungle they're in
Woman wants to test theory and after a week there is still no trace of a gardener
Man claims they must be invisible, scentless, undetectable
Woman asks what the difference between that and no gardener is
Flew argues this is how believers use religious language
They make statements which sound like scientific claims
Then refuse to accept evidence that would falsify
e.g. When faced with suffering in the world, they may add: 'God has a plan' or 'God is beyond understanding'
e.g. 'God created the world'
'God loves us like a father'
Strengths
Religious language not meaningless
Highlights the tendency Christians have to make excuses for God and his action/inaction
Weaknesses
Hare (the lunatic student and the professors)
Student is convinced his professors are out to get him
Professor is kind to him
Claims the professor is just cunning and is still out to get him
Hare says deluded student (lunatic) had a blik
(a belief about his professors that cannot be changed, no matter the evidence to the contrary)
He claims religious statements are different from scientific explanations/assertions because they are bliks
They express a worldview/fundamental belief
Bliks can be sane (right) or insane (wrong), but either way, they have a great effect on our lives and cannot be altered because any contrary evidence is ignored
Hare argues Flew has not understood how religious language works for believers
Strengths
Weaknesses
Mitchell (parable of the stranger)
Man meets other man in cafe
They speak late into the night
Man is convincved other man is on their side (partisan)
Turns out other man is a nazi
Partisan has reason for trust in stranger, even if there is conflicting evidence of strangers allegiance
Similarly, theologians grapple with chalenges to 'God is loving'; they don't simply discount evidence, as Flew claims, or refuse to acknowledge it, like Hare's bliks, as this would be a failure of faith and logic
Mitchell argues instead believers don't allow evidence to decisively count agaisnt their statements because they have underlying reason for faith
Unlike Flew's conclusion believers' statements are empty and useless because they're unfalsified, Mitchell argues they're based on reason, so are a signficant type of explanation
Strengths
Weaknesses