Hello, my name's Mrs. Rathbone.

Welcome to this lesson on R.

M.

Hare: worldviews in modern philosophy.

I'm really looking forward to learning with you today.

By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain R.

M.

Hare's concept of 'blik' and describe how different worldviews shape the way people interpret the world around them.

So, let's get started.

Some key words we'll be using in today's lesson are belief, blik, evidence, and R.

M.

Hare.

A belief is an acceptance that something is true without the need for proof.

A blik is a person's fundamental worldview that shapes how they see the world and live their life.

Evidence is facts or information that support an idea.

And R.

M.

Hare was a 20th century philosopher best known for his work on ethics and bliks.

Today's lesson will be split into two parts.

Firstly, we're going to be looking at Flew's challenge to religious beliefs, and then be looking at Hare's response and the concept of bliks.

So let's get started on Flew's challenge to religious beliefs.

Flew is considered to be a modern day philosopher.

He was born in 1923 in London and grew up in a religious family.

Flew studied philosophy at Oxford University and he became known there for his atheism.

That means for not believing in God.

Flew argued that belief in God should only be accepted if there is strong evidence to support it.

He wrote an essay which used the "Parable of the Gardener" to show that if believers ignore evidence against their beliefs, then those beliefs are meaningless.

Antony Flew famously retold a parable that was originally told by John Wisdom.

John wisdom used it to explore the complexities or difficulties of believing in God.

In contrast, Flew used the parable to challenge belief in God altogether.

In Flew's retelling of the parable, one day two explorers discover a clearing in the jungle, which is surrounded by lush vegetation.

One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." But the other disagrees and says, "There is no gardener." Now this story is a parable, which means it is more than just a story.

Flew is interested in something other than explorers and jungles.

He was actually writing about religious belief.

And so in this parable we can understand that the gardener represents God.

The explorer who thinks the gardener exists is like a religious believer.

And the one who thinks there is no gardener is a sceptic, who doubts beliefs that have no supporting evidence.

So have a think about the story so far.

If you were confronted with this clearing in the jungle surrounded by lush vegetation, would it make you believe that a gardener existed? Take some time, turn to talk to somebody nearby or talk to me, pause the video, and come back to me when you are ready.

So let's check your understanding of the parable so far.

What is the missing word? In Flew's retelling of the "Parable of the Gardener", the explorers represent the believer and the sceptic, the gardener represents? Take a moment, pause if you need to, and jot down who or what the gardener represents.

Then come back to me when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you wrote down that the gardener represents God.

The story is really about people who believe in God and people who doubt that God exists.

And so Flew continues with his retelling of the parable.

He writes, "So they pitch their tents and set a watch.

No gardener is ever seen." The believer says, 'But perhaps he's an invisible gardener.

' So they set up a barb wire fence, they electrify it, they patrol it with bloodhounds, but there is still no evidence of the gardener.

He makes excuses for the gardener, he says, 'But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks.

A gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden, which he loves.

'" Do you agree that as the believer and sceptic test out the gardener, it becomes harder and harder to believe that the gardener is real? Have a conversation with someone nearby, pause the video, and come back to me.

So let's check your understanding of the next part of the parable.

What does a believer in the parable do when no evidence of the gardener is found? Does he A, give up his belief in the gardener? B, change his explanation to say the gardener is undetectable? Or C, find new evidence of the gardener? Take a moment to think carefully about your answer.

Write it down, pause the video if you need to, and then come back to check.

Well done if you said that the explorer changes his explanation to say that the gardener is undetectable.

We've already said that the explorers represent a believer in God and a sceptic, someone who doubts God's existence.

And so we know that Flew's parable has a deeper meaning.

Flew's point is that with each new excuse, it becomes harder and harder to believe the gardener is real.

And he relates this to religious beliefs.

He wonders what would have to happen to show someone that God's love, or even that God himself, isn't real? He suggests that if someone can't think of anything that would count against their belief as proof against what they think, then that belief loses its meaning, because it can never be questioned or proven wrong.

So essentially, religious believers do not allow evidence to challenge their beliefs, or at least not very easily, and therefore their beliefs are meaningless.

So let's have a think, is Flew right? That religious beliefs lose their meaning when nothing is allowed to count against them? So when religious believers make, if you like, excuses or give reasons to defend God, is the meaning of those beliefs lost? Essentially, are they not really saying anything at all? Just like the explorer essentially was saying there was a gardener and yet there was no evidence for him.

Take a moment.

You can talk about this with someone nearby or you can pause and talk to me, and then come back to me when you are ready.

So let's check your understanding.

What does Flew argue about religious beliefs? A, they have meaning because there is evidence to prove them.

B, they only have meaning if they can be tested and potentially shown to be false.

C, they have meaning because they are personal choices which vary from person to person.

Or D, they have meaning because they are based on feelings.

Take a moment to jot your answer, pause the video if you need to, and then come back to me.

Well done if you said B, they only have meaning if they can be tested and potentially shown to be false.

Just like the existence of the gardener was a phrase that really only had meaning once the explorer let it be challenged and maybe admitted he could be wrong.

Well done if you got that correct.

So let's have a go at practising what we've learned.

So the first part of our task A, Flew's challenge to religious beliefs, is to say, who would make each of the statements below, the believer or the sceptic? Remember, the sceptic is the one who doubts.

Statement A is, "The beauty of this garden shows there must be a gardener." B, "Every time I look around I see no signs of the gardener." C, "Just because we can't see the gardener, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist." And D, "If the gardener is invisible, how can we know he's there at all?" Take some time to write down the letters A to D, and next to each you can write the word believer or sceptic.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready to check your work.

So let's see how you got on.

A, "The beauty of this gardener shows there must be a gardener", would've been said by the believer.

B, "Every time I look around I see no signs of the gardener", would've been said by the sceptic.

C, "Just because we can't see the gardener, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist", would've been said by the believer.

And D, "If the gardener is invisible, how can we know he's there at all", would've been said by the sceptic.

Well done if you got any of those right.

So let's move on to the second part of our task.

In part two, I would like you to turn each statement into a comment about religious belief.

The first example has a sentence starter to help you get going.

Statement A, "The beauty of this garden shows there must be a gardener" is a statement from the parable.

But what was Flew trying to express in this statement? Use the sentence data, "The beauty of the world." Statement B was said by the sceptic, "Every time I look around I see no signs of the gardener." How could you turn this into a comment or statement about religious belief? Statement C, which would've been said by the believer, is "Just because we can't see the gardener, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist." Turn that into a statement or comment about religious belief.

And statement D, "If the gardener is invisible, how can we know he's there at all", would've been said by the sceptic.

Turn this into a comment about religious belief.

Take some time to write down your four sentences, pause the video, and then come back to check how you did.

So let's have a look at your work.

Have you managed to turn each statement into a comment about religious belief? "The beauty of this garden shows there must be a gardener" should have become a sentence such as.

"The beauty of the world shows there must be a divine creator", or perhaps you wrote God.

Sentence B, "Every time I look around I see no signs of the gardener" should have become something like, "When I look at the world, I see no signs that God exists." Sentence C, "Just because we can't see the gardener, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist" could have become, "Just because we can't see God, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist." And finally, sentence D, "If the gardener is invisible, how can we know he's there at all?" Could have become, "If we can't see God, how can we know he's there at all?" Have a look through what you wrote and see if you put something similar to these examples here.

Well done if you did.

So now that we've looked at how Flew challenged religious belief, let's move on to our second part of the lesson, Hare's response and the concept of bliks.

Like Antony Flew, R.

M.

Hare, Richard Mervyn Hare, is also considered a modern philosopher, and he was a contemporary, so round at the same time as Flew.

Richard Hare was born in 1919 in England.

And like Antony Flew, he studied philosophy at Oxford.

He wrote his own parable and it was about a student at Oxford in response to Flew's "Parable of the Gardener".

R.

M.

Hare used the parable to introduce the idea of bliks, which are beliefs that can't be proven wrong, but still shape how people see the world.

In contrast to what Flew said, Hare wanted to show that beliefs can still be meaningful even when there is evidence against them.

Hare's parable is set in a place that he and Flew knew well, it's set at the University of Oxford.

In Hare's parable, a student at Oxford University believes all his teachers, and they're known as dons, want to murder him.

His friends set out to show him that he's wrong.

What they do is they introduce him to some friendly dons, saying things like, "You see, he doesn't really want to murder you.

He spoke to you in a most cordial manner.

Surely you are convinced now?" But however hard they try, the student's friends do not get him to change his mind.

The student replies, "Yes, but that was only his diabolical cunning.

He's really plotting against me the whole time." Remember, this is a parable, so it has a deeper meaning than the basic story itself.

I'd like you to have a think, based on what you've learned so far, why won't the student change his mind? Take some time, talk to somebody nearby, or talk to me if you'd like to, pause the video, and come back to me when you've had a think.

So let's check your understanding of the parable so far.

What are the missing words? The student's friends present him with that he is wrong.

However, the student is not convinced by this and still the dons are out to kill him.

Take a moment to jot down the two words that you think are missing.

Pause the video if you need to and come back to me to check your answers.

Well done if you wrote down evidence and believes.

Those are excellent choices of keywords from today's lesson.

You might possibly have said proof instead of evidence or maybe thinks instead of believes.

These are good answers too.

Now, just like Antony Flew, Hare was using his parable to make a point about religious belief.

R.

M.

Hare's point is that even if the student is wrong, his belief has meaning, because it shapes the way he sees the world.

And Hare calls this worldview a blik.

Religious beliefs, according to Hare, are examples of a blik.

Even if they're proved wrong or there is lots of evidence against them, like in the case of there being evidence against the existence of the gardener, unlike the belief of the student in Hare's parable, religious beliefs still have meaning because they affect how people live.

So with the example of the student, it affected his behaviour, the fact he thought that the dons were out to kill him.

And with religious people, their belief in God, even if you think or someone else thinks there's evidence against it, still affects the way they live, and therefore, their religious belief has meaning.

It is a blik.

So take a moment to think, do you agree that the student's worldview, or blik, has meaning, even though he has seen evidence against it? Have a conversation with somebody nearby or talk to me, pause the video if you need to, and then come back to me.

So let's check your understanding of the parable.

Which statement best explains how bliks relate to religious beliefs? Is it A, bliks are based on facts, just like religious beliefs, which can be proven or disproven? Is it B, bliks are like religious beliefs because they shape how people see the world? Or is it C, religious beliefs are not influence by bliks, as they rely entirely on evidence and logic.

Take a moment to think and jot down the letter that you think is the correct answer.

Pause if you need to then come back to me to check.

Well done if you chose B.

Bliks are like religious beliefs because they shape how people see the world.

So let's have a go at task B, Hare's response and the concept of bliks.

I'd like you to make a note of whether the following words describe a blik, and if they don't, to explain why not.

We have A, fact-based, B, emotionally influenced, C, impacts on behaviour, D, opinion-based, E, easily changed, F, evidence-based, and G, individual.

Write down the letters A to G and next to each you can put yes or no, depending on whether you think they are are words that describe a blik.

And if you do say no, you need to tell me why not.

Pause the video and take some time to do this before you come back to check your answers.

Let's have a look at your work.

Your answers may include a no for A, fact-based, this is because they cannot be proven.

A yes for B, emotionally influenced.

A yes for C, impacts on behaviour.

A yes for D, opinion-based.

A no for E, easily changed, because people don't usually let evidence change them.

A no for F, evidence-based.

No, because they are based on belief rather than evidence.

And a yes for G, individual.

Well done if you've got any of those right.

So let's move on to part two of our task.

In our example, Sofia and Jacob are discussing goodness, and I'd like you to give two reasons why Sofia's view could be described as a blik.

Sofia says, "I believe people are basically good." Jacob challenges her belief saying, "So how do you explain it when someone is rude to you?" Sofia comes up with a reason, "It must mean they're having a bad day." Jacob challenges further, "But we can't ignore the fact that some people do bad things." Sofia replies, "I think bad behaviour can always be explained.

So I will continue to treat people as if they are good." So think carefully about what Sofia has said and how she has responded to Jacob.

And write down two reasons why Sofia's view could be described as a blik.

Take some time, pause the video, and come back When you are ready to check your answers.

There are a few things you could have said, but your answers might look something like this.

Sofia's view is a blik, because she believes people are fundamentally good and she does not accept that bad behaviour, such as rudeness, is evidence that they are not.

Instead she says, "It must mean they are having a bad day." Sofia's view is a blik because it impacts on her behaviour.

She assumes the best in people and says, "I will continue to treat people as if they are good." Well done if you came up with these reasons or perhaps something similar.

Remember, the first point is that she doesn't change her view even when confronted with evidence.

And the second point is that it does make a difference to how she behaves.

And this is why her belief is a blik or a worldview, and why, according to Hare, it has meaning.

Thank for all your hard work today, we have learned a lot.

We've learned that Flew used the "Parable of the Gardener" to argue that religious beliefs have no meaning and that believers make excuses when they're presented with evidence against their beliefs.

R.

M.

Hare agreed that many religious believers do not accept the evidence against their beliefs, but he did not think this made them meaningless.

Religious beliefs are bliks, which strongly influence someone's view of the world and impact their behaviour.