Anthony Flew

Anthony Flew argues that language is only meaningful if it is FALSIFIABLE.

Flew argues:

to know the meaning of the negation of an assertion, is as near as makes no matter, to know the meaning of that assertions.

And if there is nothing which a putative assertion denies then there is nothing which it asserts either: and so it is not really an assertion. (1971: 2)

He means that if a Christian wants to claim that ‘God is love’, they should be able to say what experience would count as evidence that ‘God is NOT love’.

Since Christians cannot do this, Flew concludes that Christian claims about God are MEANINGLESS.

R.M. Hare

R.M. Hare responds to Flew by arguing that non-falsifiable language can STILL be meaningful.

Hare explains:

The mistake of the position which Flew selects for attack is to regard this kind of talk [i.e. Christian claims about God] as some sort of explanation [...] As such, it would obviously be ludicrous. [...]

But it is nevertheless true to say that [...] without a blik there can be no explanation; for it is by our bliks that we decide what is and what is not an explanation’. (1971: 4)

He means that ALL people (including atheists and agnostics) make un-proveable assumptions about how the world works (‘bliks‘), and then explain their experiences according to these assumptions.

For Christians, ‘God is love’ is such an assumption, and they explain their experiences as though this were the case.

Basil Mitchell

Basil Mitchell agrees with Hare, but qualifies his claim about ‘bliks’.

Mitchell points out that in Hare’s formulation ‘Nothing can count against Bliks’ (1971: 6). 

And yet, ‘The theologian surely would not deny that the fact of pain counts against the assertion that God loves men. This very incompatibility generates the most intractable of theological problems — the problem of evil’ (1971: 5).

In other words, Christians DO recognise that some experiences (like pointless suffering) are difficult or impossible to explain according to their assumptions about the world (e.g. ‘God is love’).

Nonetheless, Christians can CHOOSE to maintain the blik.

Indeed, the various ‘theodicies’ are simply Christians’ attempts to maintain the blik ‘God is love’ in the face of suffering.

References:

• Flew, Anthony, R.M. Hare, and Basil Mitchell. 1971. ‘Theology & Falsification: A Symposium‘, Stephen Hicks <https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FlewHareMitchell-What-Faith-Is.pdf> [accessed 28 October 2026]