Attack On John H. Hick? S View Of Verification Essay, Research Paper

11-22-99

Doctrine of Relgion

The Problem with Verification

In the undermentioned essay I will try to assail John H. Hick & # 8217 ; s position of confirmation, and how it can be processed within stairss. I will spread out on how faith, and everything that is contained within it, can & # 8217 ; t be verified at all. Although Hick discussed the jobs of confirmation in Chapter 8 & # 8220 ; The Problems of Verification & # 8221 ; in Philosophy of Religion, he lacked treatment on important elements, discoursing the job of verifying faith as a whole.

The job of confirmation International Relations and Security Network & # 8217 ; t merely one job but many. The jobs of verifying something are needed in order to give that something credibleness. To verify, is to do true, and in order to do true, you must oppugn what is being verified and do certain it wholly factual. Experiments, experiences, and readings are needed in the confirmations procedure. Hick discusses the job of confirmation, and applies a verifiable procedure in & # 8220 ; The Idea of Eschatological Verification & # 8221 ; .

In order to concentrate my analysis, I shall focus on my essay upon a treatment of the undermentioned six-step statement, assumed here to be valid, but non needfully sound, doing the issue of soundness the cardinal issue:

( 1 ) Hick demonstrates the job of confirmation in which he explains the thought of life after decease, by a measure by measure procedure of how it can be verified. Hick explains that because of certain implicit in rules of confirmation, & # 8220 ; life after decease & # 8221 ; may in fact be true because it can & # 8217 ; t be disproved. However, I do non hold with Hick in that & # 8220 ; life after decease & # 8221 ; can & # 8217 ; t be disproved, does non intend it & # 8217 ; s true. This leads my essay in which nil in faith can be verified.

( 2 ) The cardinal nucleus of confirmation is the remotion of evidences for rational uncertainty. But I do non understand that. Does that mean: taking any evidences of rational uncertainty can immediately do something true? Rational uncertainty is rational thought and doubting of a certain proposition. I can & # 8217 ; t seem to take my uncertainties that there is non & # 8220 ; life after decease & # 8221 ; , but simply decease, and when we die & # 8230 ; we merely decease. Because of my uninterrupted uncertainty of the topic, confirmation is non in fact taking topographic point. But if person were to believe that in fact life did take topographic point once more after decease, and there was no uncertainty of that, but absolute religion in the construct of it, confirmation is taking topographic point. But my uncertainty continues to linger, protracting confirmation. Does this mean that confirmation is wholly revolved around individuality in which it depends: on the individual seeking to verify, what he or she is verifying, and how much belief do they hold in what they & # 8217 ; re verifying?

( 3 ) Taking into consideration now that confirmation is wholly up to the person, & # 8220 ; publically verifiable & # 8221 ; can & # 8217 ; t be used to verify something and has no topographic point it seeking replies. A factual averment is something of fact and is wholly true. Sometimes no affair how much that averment is in fact true, it can & # 8217 ; t be verified by all. Not everyone believes the same things. Suppose that there are merely 3 groups of faiths on Earth and each faith has been verified as true. Some believe in proposition A. Some believe in proposition B. And a little sum believes in proposition C. Who is right than? All propositions are purportedly true, than which 1 is the right one? If something is verified, does the confirmation make it perfectly true

and right in which we should follow it?

( 4 ) Hick than explains that & # 8220 ; it is possible for a proposition to be in rule verifiable if true but non in rule confirmable if false. & # 8221 ; He further explains that the proposition may one twenty-four hours be verified if it is true but can ne’er be falsified if it is false. This doesn & # 8217 ; t seem to be true. If a proposition is found to be true, than it is true, but if a proposition is found to be false, it & # 8217 ; s non false? How does that work out? What if something is ne’er verified to be true or false? What is it so? & # 8220 ; Life after Death, & # 8221 ; for illustration, has ne’er been proven to be true and it & # 8217 ; s ne’er been proved faithlessly. If one twenty-four hours person was to happen out that life after decease is proven to be false, what is the impression than of & # 8220 ; life after decease & # 8221 ; ? Has it been falsified or is it still possible to be verified? Can something be falsified and than proven true and go verifiably true?

( 5 ) Confirmation can merely be sought out utilizing reading. Interpretation is the chief ingredient of verifying a proposition and since reading is different for all, nil in faith can be verified. Person A thinks that there is life after decease while Person B disagrees, believing that there is nil wining decease. Person C nevertheless doesn & # 8217 ; t cognize what to believe and make up one’s mind to merely travel with his life and see what will go on. All dice on the same twenty-four hours and all figure out the truth. Let & # 8217 ; s say that Person A was in fact right and there is life after decease. Person A has verified that in fact life after decease does be. Person B has besides observed the fact that there is life after decease besides. Person C nevertheless sees the life after decease experience merely as decease. Person C feels that life is non taking topographic point after decease instead that he is populating out his decease experience. He is non in fact life after decease but & # 8220 ; populating decease & # 8221 ; . So now Persons A and B both feel that & # 8220 ; life after decease & # 8221 ; has been verified. Person C has verified something wholly different. Which person/persons is right? Both and neither are right because in spiritual footings, everything seems to be true and false at the same clip. Merely as nil is true and nil is false. Hick explains this: & # 8220 ; In other words, neither of the rival places is, even in rule, verifiable. & # 8221 ;

( 6 ) In order for something to be verifiable, it must be proven to be true, but nil in faith has been proven to be true. The narratives of Jesus, Moses and others, have simply been suggestions of what might hold happened, non verifiable history. It can & # 8217 ; t even be perceived as history because none of it has been proven to go fact. There are so many different types of faiths and beliefs on topics such as: life after decease, God, spiritual behaviour, that led to the inquiry if any is truly verifiable. Can you verify faith and it & # 8217 ; s constituents? Can you verify religions and supplication, happening out if it really does something? Can you travel the opposite way turn outing that none of this happened and no faith is true?

Is confirmation of import at all? Is it necessary to seek to turn out something that can & # 8217 ; t of all time be proven? Religion is based on religion and beliefs that are the primary foundation in which others believe in. Faith and belief can non be verified and hence have no portion in confirmation. Therefore, faith can & # 8217 ; t be processed into confirmation. No 1 can verify any places that have to make with God and faith, or life and decease.

Bibliography

The Philosophy of Religion-John H. Hick