If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language
- A cognitivist account of religious language would typically argue that religious
claims aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are ‘truth apt’.
- For example, the sentence “God exists” expresses the belief that God exists,
which is true or false depending on whether it describes or mis-describes
reality.
- A non-cognitivist account of religious language would typically argue that
religious claims do not aim to describe the world through assertions which
may be true or false (so religious beliefs are not ‘truth apt’).
- Rather, they express non-belief-like attitudes towards the world, such as
emotions, desires, faith, or guiding principles (e.g Hare’s ‘bliks’).
- For example, the sentence “God exists” expresses a commitment to a certain
way of life/of interpreting the world.
The empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of metaphysical (here,
religious) language: the verification principle and verification/falsification (Ayer)
- Ayer posits that a proposition is cognitively meaningful iff it is either an
analytic/tautological truth or empirically verifiable
- A tautology is a statement which is true in necessity or by virtue of the
meaning of the words.
- You can identify if something is a tautology if its negation leads to a logical
contradiction.
- Religious language when negated does not lead to a logical contradictions as
you can conceive of, say, "God not existing" without self-contradiction
, - So religious propositions are not analytic truths
- This empirical verification can be strong or weak. The weak version means
that its probable truth could potentially be empirically verified, whereas the
strong version means that its truth could in practice be conclusively
empirically verified.
- Moreover, this empirical verification can also be direct or indirect, meaning
that the verification need not be based on direct, immediate observations.
- Finally, empirical verification can either be in practice or in principle. A
proposition is verifiable in practice if we currently possess the technology,
resources, and situational capability to observe and confirm its truth or
falsity right now. Verifiability in principle means a statement is meaningful
because we know what observations would be needed to test it, even if we
cannot physically perform that test right now.
- Because ‘God’ is a ‘metaphysical term/concept’ no sentences about God can
be empirically verified (direct or indirect or weak or strong) - religious
propositions are not synthetic truths.
- They can neither be verified practically or in principle as in any case God
exists in a transcendent realm beyond human perception or understanding.
- So, religious propositions are not empirically verifiable
- So, religious propositions do not fit either criteria and thus are not cognitively
meaningful - they are "unintelligible expressions"
- So, religious claims do not aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and
are not ‘truth apt’.
Hick’s response to Ayer (eschatological verification) and issues arising from that
response
- Hick supports Ayer’s verification principle
- Ayer posits that a proposition is cognitively meaningful iff it is either an
analytic/tautological truth or empirically verifiable
- A tautology is a statement which is true in necessity or by virtue of the
meaning of the words.
- You can identify if something is a tautology if its negation leads to a logical
contradiction.
, - Hick concedes that religious language when negated does not lead to a
logical contradictions as you can conceive of, say, "God not existing" without
self-contradiction
- So, Hick concedes that religious propositions are not analytic truths
- However, Hick, unlike Ayer, argues that religious language is empirically
verifiable.
- Again, he concedes that religious claims cannot be verified right now in
practice and that we do not have the current means to test these claims
immediately.
- However, according to Hick, religious language is verifiable in principle
- We cannot test the claim right now, but we logically understand what
experiences would count as proof if we could (e.g meeting God).
- Specifically, we can verify God’s existence in principle eschatologically - it is
verifiable in principle after death
- Hick illustrates this through his parable of the celestial city.
- Two men walking down the road do not know where the road will end but
each has a different guess - that it will either lead to the Celestial city or
nowhere.
- Regardless of whether their guesses are true or false, at some point they will
be able to verify whether or not their predictions are right or wrong which
makes their predictions on the road cognitively meaningful - their predictions
aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are ‘truth apt’
- Analogously, atheists and theists do not know what will happen when they
die but each have their different guesses
- Regardless of whether their guesses are true or false, at some point they will
be able to verify whether or not their predictions are right or wrong which
makes their predictions in life cognitively meaningful - their predictions aim
to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are ‘truth apt’
- So, religious statements are verifiable and thus cognitively meaningful
- So, religious claims aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are
‘truth apt’.
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language
- A cognitivist account of religious language would typically argue that religious
claims aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are ‘truth apt’.
- For example, the sentence “God exists” expresses the belief that God exists,
which is true or false depending on whether it describes or mis-describes
reality.
- A non-cognitivist account of religious language would typically argue that
religious claims do not aim to describe the world through assertions which
may be true or false (so religious beliefs are not ‘truth apt’).
- Rather, they express non-belief-like attitudes towards the world, such as
emotions, desires, faith, or guiding principles (e.g Hare’s ‘bliks’).
- For example, the sentence “God exists” expresses a commitment to a certain
way of life/of interpreting the world.
The empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of metaphysical (here,
religious) language: the verification principle and verification/falsification (Ayer)
- Ayer posits that a proposition is cognitively meaningful iff it is either an
analytic/tautological truth or empirically verifiable
- A tautology is a statement which is true in necessity or by virtue of the
meaning of the words.
- You can identify if something is a tautology if its negation leads to a logical
contradiction.
- Religious language when negated does not lead to a logical contradictions as
you can conceive of, say, "God not existing" without self-contradiction
, - So religious propositions are not analytic truths
- This empirical verification can be strong or weak. The weak version means
that its probable truth could potentially be empirically verified, whereas the
strong version means that its truth could in practice be conclusively
empirically verified.
- Moreover, this empirical verification can also be direct or indirect, meaning
that the verification need not be based on direct, immediate observations.
- Finally, empirical verification can either be in practice or in principle. A
proposition is verifiable in practice if we currently possess the technology,
resources, and situational capability to observe and confirm its truth or
falsity right now. Verifiability in principle means a statement is meaningful
because we know what observations would be needed to test it, even if we
cannot physically perform that test right now.
- Because ‘God’ is a ‘metaphysical term/concept’ no sentences about God can
be empirically verified (direct or indirect or weak or strong) - religious
propositions are not synthetic truths.
- They can neither be verified practically or in principle as in any case God
exists in a transcendent realm beyond human perception or understanding.
- So, religious propositions are not empirically verifiable
- So, religious propositions do not fit either criteria and thus are not cognitively
meaningful - they are "unintelligible expressions"
- So, religious claims do not aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and
are not ‘truth apt’.
Hick’s response to Ayer (eschatological verification) and issues arising from that
response
- Hick supports Ayer’s verification principle
- Ayer posits that a proposition is cognitively meaningful iff it is either an
analytic/tautological truth or empirically verifiable
- A tautology is a statement which is true in necessity or by virtue of the
meaning of the words.
- You can identify if something is a tautology if its negation leads to a logical
contradiction.
, - Hick concedes that religious language when negated does not lead to a
logical contradictions as you can conceive of, say, "God not existing" without
self-contradiction
- So, Hick concedes that religious propositions are not analytic truths
- However, Hick, unlike Ayer, argues that religious language is empirically
verifiable.
- Again, he concedes that religious claims cannot be verified right now in
practice and that we do not have the current means to test these claims
immediately.
- However, according to Hick, religious language is verifiable in principle
- We cannot test the claim right now, but we logically understand what
experiences would count as proof if we could (e.g meeting God).
- Specifically, we can verify God’s existence in principle eschatologically - it is
verifiable in principle after death
- Hick illustrates this through his parable of the celestial city.
- Two men walking down the road do not know where the road will end but
each has a different guess - that it will either lead to the Celestial city or
nowhere.
- Regardless of whether their guesses are true or false, at some point they will
be able to verify whether or not their predictions are right or wrong which
makes their predictions on the road cognitively meaningful - their predictions
aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are ‘truth apt’
- Analogously, atheists and theists do not know what will happen when they
die but each have their different guesses
- Regardless of whether their guesses are true or false, at some point they will
be able to verify whether or not their predictions are right or wrong which
makes their predictions in life cognitively meaningful - their predictions aim
to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are ‘truth apt’
- So, religious statements are verifiable and thus cognitively meaningful
- So, religious claims aim to describe how reality is, express beliefs and are
‘truth apt’.
