It is easier to show why a theory is wrong than to show why it is right.  A theory that explains how it might be shown wrong is a good one. 

In science, it is recognised that where possible the principle of falsification must be applied.  Nobody says it is perfect.  It does not help with the biggest law of all, gravity.  But it is helpful in separating science from nonsense pretending to be science.  It merely says a good credible theory is one that passes attempts to show it wrong.  You need to give your theory and lay out what would refute it.

The model of falsification can help in other disciplines as well.

An idea that is not demolished by criticism is a strong one.  It might still be wrong but we should value it.

Consider religious claims.

If religion really believes in informed choice, it will tell you why you should worship with it and why you should not.

Let us see what the principle does with its claims.

Nobody has ever experienced spirit - you can only experience what feels like it but that is not the same as examining or testing spirit. A spirit is a being that is real but has no parts or material components so it cannot be tested or discovered or experienced. It cannot be distinguished from imagination. For many of us, spirit is purely imagined. God is spirit which means that if spirit is nonsense then God cannot exist. There is no way of showing if spirit is possible or impossible. Thus the Falsification Principle shows it is nonsense.
To claim that God exists is a bigger thing than saying a ghost lives in the cellar. God by definition is that which is entitled to extreme sacrifice of devotion. We should be willing to suffer to the extreme forever for him if he needed us to. Thus if God is meaningless and so is the ghost, God is extreme meaninglessness. The ghost though bad isn't so bad. Thus it is heinous to put God beyond refutation. It is too important to go that far with it.
If we need to be so arrogant and stubborn that nothing will falsify our belief in God then clearly God is a bad concept. It encourages badness. If you want a concept that does that and which encourages belief then you are saying that God is good though he encourages bad belief or belief that is a vice. That makes God meaningless for you are contradicting yourself. You can't have a chaste adulterer and so you cannot have a God that blesses vice. If the God concept comes from vice then why should we trust the religious deliberations of those who advocate it? Why should we pay any attention to alleged evidence for God?
The Nazis put Hitler's views and politics beyond criticism or any hope of being refuted. No matter what Hitler did or didn't do, it was right. Look what that led to. They did the warped good of being loyal to him. If the God belief encourages such loyalty, what if the loyalty is given to evil men like Hitler instead? Hitler got some good out of the loyalty. That was terrible but it is far worse to give such loyalty to a being you cannot even see like God! If you can put the God who empowered Hitler and kept him in existence beyond criticism then you have not far to go to start doing that with Hitler too.
Having reasons for belief means only that you are trying to be reasonable not that you are reasonable. All contrary or unreasonable people have reasons for what they say they believe or do. It is reality that is the final arbiter if you are really reasonable or not. Even those who use reason and are rationalists must admit that they strive towards reason in many things. You can have a million reasons for believing that St Thomas masqueraded as Jesus after Jesus was stolen from the tomb and that he was called the Twin for they were really twins but if Jesus rose from the dead your belief is against reason and that is final. Reason is trying to find what is real.
FP Definitely applies to God if nothing else
CS Lewis said that you cannot trust your senses if you didn't get them from an all-good and all-honest God. If God exists then he alone matters so knowledge only matters if he gives it to us. It is only then that it is possible. Now if God is only a guess, then it is against knowledge to say, "God gives us knowledge. If there is no God there is no knowledge. Those who think they know things are deluded." It is against knowledge for it bases knowledge on a guess. Knowledge is not knowledge if it is all about a guess. If you have to guess that we have knowledge, then guess it. Do not bring in props such as God. That is like trying to prop up a house of cards that is about to fall by making it fall harder. If falsification theory is useless as some hope, it works in the case of God. It ruins the God concept. It is dishonest to guess that there is a God and that is how you know things. Why not simply guess that you know things? God is simply too big of a claim for nonsense such as that! It makes nonsense of God too. And that is what the Falsification Principle does. It makes nonsense of God talk. God is the one thing that needs the Falsification Principle more than anything ever could. It is simple - if you think you know nothing you cannot mean anything you say so it is meaningless. If you try to base knowledge on God you will be unable to. It will not happen. You in fact make things worse and you are lying that you know things when you are only guessing.
Now if you need God before you can claim knowledge then what knowledge matters most? What knowledge should be sought if you have to choose? The answer would be spiritual and theological knowledge. If you are allowed different forms of knowledge that knowledge has to be based on spiritual or God knowledge.
Religion goes as far as to argue that the concept of good cannot exist unless you believe in God. But we treat good as real whether we believe in God or not. You don't need a God to convince you that eating healthy makes you well. Even if you think it is a sin to be well, you think it is good to be sick so you cannot get away from good. Religion keeps trying to get away from it to create an artificial good: God.

Some merit
Suppose the Falsification Principle is wrong. If so then it is not totally bad. There is some merit in it. We might that say something that cannot be disproved is a little meaningless. The more an effort is made to protect it from falsification the more meaningless it is. It is a shades of grey issue not a black and white one.
No refutation of the Falsification Principle works completely.  It points in the right direction.  It points us in the right direction.  Some don't even want it to be seen as helpful even if not infallible.  The principle has its enemies because it successfully disposes of religion and God.  We do not declare falsification to be definite. It is only probable.  It is not a dogmatic matter.  It is more about being a method and definitely one that is the most likely to be correct.


No Copyright