I have a question about Verificationism. As I understand it Verificationists criticise theists whose beliefs aren't verifiable.
How would they respond to the following scenarios;
(1) A theist determines her belief based on a single coin toss. It came up heads this verifying her belief in God. She went into the test accepting it could come out either way and saying she would genuinely disbelieve if it came out tails and genuinely believe if it came out heads.
(2) She repeats this process every morning. And thus ends up some days believing others not.
Or, something different;
(3) A particular believer believes Christ will return in 10, 000 years. Thus his belief is meaningful and verifiable, one needs only wait a very long time. Would they say he should remain in a suspension of belief?
I have heard of the theory of eschatological verification, did verificationists disregard this too? On what grounds?
Verificationists typically say that for a claim to be meaningful it must be empirically testable. Tossing a coin might test claims about gravity, mechanics, or the symmetry of the coin, but it does not test an unrelated claim. It is probably meaningful to believe that Christ will return in 10,000 years (so long as we're specific about what "Christ" and "return" mean) but that does not mean it is plausible. In thinking about what is rational to believe we need to consider both meaningfulness and plausibility.
- Log in to post comments