1. MITCHELL AND FLEW - OVERVIEW
Introduction
Religious believers question their beliefs and go through a trial of faith when confronted with new evidence and this makes their beliefs meaningful.
Parable of the Partisan
The partisan continues to trust in the stranger but he questions his beliefs in him.
Questioning Beliefs
Questioning beliefs shows that religious people understand what would have to be the case for their beliefs to be false and this process makes their beliefs meaningful.
Hare and Bliks
Mitchell disagrees with Hare’s ideas about bliks, he thinks that religious statements are assertions and should be questioned, not blindly qualified.
Interpreting Religious Statements
1 – We can treat them like scientific statements
2- As vacuous formulae
3 – Significant articles of faith – these are things that you are committed to and have a big impact on how you live your life.
Flew
Will concentrate his response on Mitchell and Hare
Recap on Falsification
If a person will not allow any evidence to count against their beliefs then they are not sensitive to facts and are therefore meaningless.
Response to Mitchell
Agree on some points but ultimately thinks that Mitchell is playing for time as some things are simply inconsistent with an all loving God so to believe in one would mean having to qualify your ideas at some point.
Response to Hare
Disagrees completely with his idea of bliks as believers consider religious statements as assertions about how things actually are rather than just their own personal view of the world.
Conclusion
Religious language is a sort of "doublethink" because believers convince themselves something is true (that a loving God is in charge of the world) while their ordinary experience tells them this is false

2. Interpreting Religious Statements
Introduction
Questioning Beliefs
Interpreting Religious Statements
Parable of the Partisan
Hare and Bliks

3. Recap on Falsification
Response to Hare
Religious believers question their beliefs and go through a trial of faith when confronted with new evidence and this makes their beliefs meaningful.
Response to Mitchell
Conclusion
The partisan continues to trust in the stranger but he questions his beliefs in him.

4. 1 – We can treat them like scientific statements
Questioning beliefs shows that religious people understand what would have to be the case for their beliefs to be false and this process makes their beliefs meaningful.
1 – We can treat them like scientific statements
2- As vacuous formulae
3 – Significant articles of faith these are things that you are committed to and have a big impact on how you live your life.
If a person will not allow any evidence to count against their beliefs then they are not sensitive to facts and are therefore meaningless.
Mitchell disagrees with Hare’s ideas about bliks, he thinks that religious statements are assertions and should be questioned, not blindly qualified.
Will concentrate his response on Mitchell and Hare
Agree on some points but ultimately thinks that Mitchell is playing for time as some things are simply inconsistent with an all loving God so to believe in one would mean having to qualify your ideas at some point.

5. Disagrees completely with his idea of bliks as believers consider religious statements as assertions about how things actually are rather than just their own personal view of the world.
MITCHELL
Religious language is a sort of "doublethink" because believers convince themselves something is true (that a loving God is in charge of the world) while their ordinary experience tells them this is false
FLEW