Theological Noncognitivism: Religious Language Is Meaningless.

Theological Noncognitivism: Religious Language Is Meaningless (Or, Why God Talk is Just Fancy Blah Blah 🗣️)

(A Lecture in Three (Slightly Unholy) Parts)

Welcome, seekers of truth (or at least, mildly interesting lectures)! Today, we’re diving headfirst into a philosophical quagmire so deep, so potentially blasphemous (depending on who you ask), that it might just make your head spin faster than a priest after communion wine tasting. 🍷

We’re tackling Theological Noncognitivism.

(Disclaimer: No actual deities were harmed in the making of this lecture. Your personal beliefs are your own business. This is a safe space for intellectual exploration… even if it feels a little bit like intellectual heresy. 😈)

Part 1: What’s the Deal with Cognitivism, Anyway? (And Why Should We Care?)

Before we can even think about noncognitivism, we need to understand its slightly less rebellious older sibling: cognitivism. Think of it as the responsible, slightly boring, sibling who always gets straight A’s. 🤓

Cognitivism, in the context of language, says this:

• Statements are meaningful if and only if they express a proposition.
• A proposition is something that can be true or false.

Think of everyday statements:

• "The cat is on the mat." (True or False – easily verifiable!)
• "Paris is the capital of France." (True – check a map!)
• "All swans are white." (False – black swans exist, showing us nature’s sense of humour. 🦢)

These statements are cognitive because they convey information that can be assessed for truth or falsity. We can use evidence, logic, and observation to determine if they correspond to reality.

Here’s a handy table to illustrate:

Statement	Expresses a Proposition?	Can be True or False?	Cognitive?
The Earth is round.	Yes	Yes (True)	Yes
Unicorns have purple hair.	Yes	Yes (False)	Yes
The sky is blue.	Yes	Yes (True)	Yes
Abracadabra!	No	No	No

Now, why is this important? Because if a statement can’t be true or false, according to cognitivism, it’s essentially… meaningless. It’s just noise. 📢

Think of it like trying to argue whether the color blue tastes like chicken. It’s not that the statement is false; it’s that the statement doesn’t make sense in the first place. There’s no framework for assigning truth or falsity to it. 🤷‍♀️

Part 2: Enter Theological Noncognitivism: The Rebel Without a Cause (…or Truth Value)

Okay, now we’re ready to unleash the philosophical beast: Theological Noncognitivism. 😈

In a nutshell, theological noncognitivism argues that religious language (specifically statements about God, religious doctrines, etc.) does NOT express propositions that can be true or false. Therefore, it’s… wait for it… meaningless in the cognitive sense.

Ouch. 💥 That’s a pretty bold claim. It’s like saying that the Bible is just a really long, elaborate Mad Libs.

Key Idea: Religious language isn’t meant to describe facts about the universe. It serves some other purpose (we’ll get to those later), but it’s not aiming to convey information that can be verified or falsified.

Think of it like this:

Imagine you’re listening to a beautiful piece of music. 🎶 Does it make sense to ask, "Is this symphony true?" No! Music evokes emotions, inspires feelings, and expresses ideas in a non-literal way. Similarly, theological noncognitivists argue that religious language works more like music than like a scientific textbook.

Some famous proponents of theological noncognitivism (or ideas closely aligned with it) include:

• A.J. Ayer: A logical positivist who famously claimed that religious statements are "literally senseless."
• Ludwig Wittgenstein (later Wittgenstein): Argued that religious language has meaning within a specific "language game" or form of life.
• D.Z. Phillips: Expanded on Wittgenstein’s ideas, emphasizing the importance of understanding religious language within its own context and rejecting attempts to justify it based on external criteria.

Let’s look at some examples of religious statements through the noncognitivist lens:

Statement	Cognitive Interpretation (What it seems to say)	Noncognitivist Interpretation (What it really means)
"God exists."	There is a being called God who has certain properties (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.).	An expression of faith, commitment, and belonging to a religious community. A way of orienting one’s life.
"God is love."	God is literally equivalent to the abstract concept of love.	An expression of the speaker’s highest values and ideals. A way of describing the speaker’s experience of the divine.
"Jesus died for our sins."	Jesus literally took the punishment for humanity’s wrongdoing.	A symbolic representation of sacrifice, redemption, and the transformative power of faith.
"Heaven is a beautiful place."	There is a literal physical location called Heaven where good people go after death.	An expression of hope, comfort, and the belief in a meaningful afterlife. A way of coping with grief and mortality.

The Argument from Verification and Falsification:

A crucial tool in the noncognitivist arsenal is the Verification Principle. Initially championed by the Logical Positivists (like Ayer), it states (in its strongest form) that a statement is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified or falsified.

• Verification: We can find evidence to show it’s true.
• Falsification: We can find evidence to show it’s false.

Think back to our cat and mat example. We can verify it by looking to see if the cat is actually on the mat. We can falsify it if we find the cat lounging on the sofa instead.

The problem for religious language, according to this principle, is that it’s notoriously difficult (some might say impossible) to verify or falsify claims about God.

• If someone says, "God loves me," how do we prove or disprove that? Do good things happening to them confirm it? What about when bad things happen?
• If someone says, "God is omnipotent," how do we reconcile that with the existence of suffering in the world? If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t He prevent evil?

Since religious statements seem resistant to empirical testing, noncognitivists argue they fail the verification/falsification test and are therefore cognitively meaningless. 🚫🧠

However, it’s crucial to note that the Verification Principle itself has faced significant criticism. It’s argued that the principle itself cannot be verified empirically, making it self-defeating. Plus, some statements, like historical claims or those about unobservable entities in physics, are difficult to directly verify, yet we wouldn’t necessarily dismiss them as meaningless.

Part 3: But Wait! If Religious Language Is Meaningless, Then Why Do People Use It? (The Possible Purposes of ‘God Talk’)

Okay, so if theological noncognitivism is right, and religious language isn’t about conveying factual information, what is it about? Why do people bother with all the prayers, sermons, and theological debates? 🤷‍♂️

Noncognitivists offer several possible explanations:

1. Expressing Emotions and Attitudes:

Religious language can be a powerful way to express feelings of awe, gratitude, love, fear, and hope. It’s like saying "Wow!" when you see a stunning sunset. It’s not conveying information about the sunset’s chemical composition; it’s expressing your emotional response to it.

• Example: Saying "Thank God!" after a successful surgery isn’t necessarily a claim about divine intervention. It’s an expression of relief and gratitude. 🙏

2. Moral Guidance and Prescriptions:

Religious language often provides moral guidance and prescribes certain behaviors. It’s like a set of instructions for living a good life.

• Example: The Ten Commandments aren’t just statements about the universe; they’re rules for how to treat others and conduct oneself. 📜

3. Building Community and Identity:

Sharing religious language and rituals can create a sense of belonging and shared identity within a community. It’s like a secret handshake that identifies you as a member of a particular group.

• Example: Participating in a religious service or reciting a prayer together reinforces social bonds and strengthens a sense of community. 🤝

4. Symbolic Representation and Metaphor:

Religious language often uses metaphors and symbols to convey complex ideas and experiences that are difficult to express literally. It’s like using a poem to describe the complexities of love.

• Example: The story of Noah’s Ark can be interpreted as a symbolic representation of redemption, renewal, and the importance of faith. 🚢

5. Maintaining a "Language Game" (Wittgenstein):

Wittgenstein argued that language gains meaning within specific "language games" or forms of life. Religious language, according to this view, has its own rules, conventions, and purposes that are distinct from those of science or everyday conversation.

• Example: The concept of "grace" might not make sense outside of a religious context, but within that context, it has a specific meaning and significance.

Here’s another table summarizing these potential purposes:

Purpose	Description	Example
Expressing Emotions	Conveying feelings like awe, gratitude, fear, hope.	"Praise God!" after a fortunate event.
Moral Guidance	Providing rules and principles for ethical behavior.	"Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Building Community	Creating a sense of belonging and shared identity.	Participating in religious rituals and ceremonies.
Symbolic Representation	Using metaphors and symbols to convey complex ideas and experiences.	The crucifixion as a symbol of sacrifice and redemption.
Maintaining a "Language Game"	Operating within a specific set of rules and conventions within a religious context.	Using terms like "grace" and "salvation" within their specific religious meaning.

Objections and Criticisms of Theological Noncognitivism:

While theological noncognitivism offers a provocative and potentially liberating perspective on religious language, it’s not without its critics. Here are some common objections:

• It trivializes religious belief: Critics argue that noncognitivism reduces religious faith to mere emotional expression or social bonding, ignoring the deep and profound beliefs that many religious people hold. They believe that people do think they are talking about real things, like God, heaven, hell, etc.
• It fails to account for religious experience: Many religious people claim to have direct experiences of the divine. Noncognitivism struggles to explain these experiences if religious language is simply meaningless. 🧘‍♀️
• It undermines the truth claims of religion: If religious statements are not intended to be true or false, then it’s difficult to defend the validity of religious doctrines or practices.
• It’s based on a flawed understanding of language: Some argue that the Verification Principle and other noncognitivist assumptions about language are too narrow and fail to capture the full range of human communication.

In Conclusion (For Now…): The Ongoing Debate 🗣️

Theological noncognitivism remains a controversial and debated topic in philosophy of religion. It challenges us to rethink the nature of religious language and to consider whether it’s appropriate to apply the same standards of truth and falsity to religious claims as we do to scientific statements.

Whether you find it insightful or offensive (or both!), grappling with the arguments of theological noncognitivism can deepen your understanding of religion, language, and the human quest for meaning.

So, the next time you hear someone talking about God, take a moment to consider: Are they trying to convey factual information about the universe? Or are they doing something else entirely?

Bonus Points for Further Exploration:

• Explore the works of A.J. Ayer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and D.Z. Phillips.
• Research the debate between cognitivism and noncognitivism in other areas of philosophy, such as ethics and aesthetics.
• Consider how different religious traditions might respond to the challenge of theological noncognitivism.

Now, go forth and ponder… and try not to start too many arguments at your next family dinner. 😉