According to Anthony Flew, what often disqualifies religious statements?

The correct answer highlights the core idea presented by Anthony Flew in his critique of religious language. Flew argued that religious statements often come with qualifications that dilute their meaning and testability. When believers respond to challenges about their claims by introducing various qualifications—essentially hedging their bets—they make it difficult to falsify or even test those claims. For example, if someone claims that "God is love," and then adds qualifications that limit this assertion based on personal experience or context, the statement becomes less about an objective assertion and more about subjective interpretation, thereby losing its philosophical weight.

Flew's concern was that for a statement to be meaningful, it must be vulnerable to being proven false; otherwise, it lacks substantive content. If every religious statement can be qualified in such a way that it evades critique or refutation, then it does not stand as a robust claim about reality. Thus, the presence of constant qualifications undermines the ability of religious statements to make clear, testable claims, effectively disqualifying them in the realm of meaningful discussion about empirical reality.