Mock: Religous Lanuage - Cognitive or Non-Cognitive? Flashcards
What is cognitive v non-cognitive language?
Cognitive language expresses knowledge & facts - verifiable or falsifiable.
Non-cognitive expresses things which we could never know, e.g. values, feelings.
What is cognitive v non-cognitive language?
Cognitive language expresses knowledge & facts.
Non-cognitive expresses things which we could never know, e.g. values, feelings.
Why should religious language be seen as non-cognitive?
It cannot be shown to be about a factually existent being.
It does not meet the challenge of Ayer’s Verification Principle - it can’t be verified in sense experience.
What & whose argument argues that RL is cognitive and eschatologically verifiable?
J. Hick
When we die, we’ll see God. We know this is possible in principle, a future possibility.
- Parable of the Celestial City
“Yet when they turn the last corner, it will be apparent that one of them has been right all the time and the other wrong.”
John Hick, Parable of the Celestial City
What is Hare’s argument? Is he arguing that RL is cognitive or non-cognitive?
Hare argues that RL reduces to non-cognitive, non-verifiable bliks.
Blik: a non-rational belief, can never be falsified yet is life changing, thus crucial.
Why are believers likely to consider their religious beliefs cognitive?
What are they likely to claim?
If religion has no cognitive language and beliefs, it would be reduced to poetry or literature.
They are likely to claim that “God exists” is a factual assertion.
What did Tillich believe RL was - cognitive or not?
What was his argument?
Tillich believed RL was non-cognitive.
He argued that RL was symbolic and meaningful - it cant have literal meaning since God is beyond our understanding.
