Theological noncognitivism is the position that religious language – specifically, words such as "God" – are not cognitively meaningful. It is sometimes considered synonymous with ignosticism  . Overview Theological noncognitivists argue in different ways, depending on what one considers the "theory of meaning" to be. Michael Martin writing from a verificationist perspective concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable. Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press, 1990. Martin, Michael. "Positive Atheism and The Meaninglessness of Theism", Infidels.org George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for God: he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless. An example: Consider the proposition of the existence of a "pink unicorn". When asserting the proposition, one can use attributes to at least describe the concept such a cohesive idea is transferred in language. With no knowledge of "pink unicorn", it can be described minimally with the attributes "pink", "horse", and "horn". Only then can the proposition be accepted or rejected. The acceptance or rejection of the proposition is distinct from the concept. It is asserted by Steven J. Conifer that to be a positive atheist, one who not only lacks a belief in gods but who furthermore denies that gods exist , is to give credence to the existence of a concept of something for God to refer to, because it assumes that there is something understandable to not believe in. Conifer, Steven J. "Theological Noncognitivism Examined" (archive) See also Newton's flaming laser sword Problem of religious language References%DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% External links Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) by Theodore M. Drange The Argument from Non-Cognitivism, by James Lazarus, is a discussion of Smith-style noncognitivism.%DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% Category:Irreligion
Theological noncognitivism is the position that religious language , particularly words such as "God" , are not intelligible or meaningful, and thus sentences like "God exists" are cognitively meaningless. It may be considered synonymous with ignosticism (also called igtheism), a term coined in 1964 by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism . Arguments Theological noncognitivists argue in different ways, depending on what one considers the "theory of meaning" to be. Michael Martin writing from a verificationist perspective concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable. George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for God: he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless. An example: Consider the proposition of the existence of a "pink unicorn". When asserting the proposition, one can use attributes to at least describe the concept such a cohesive idea is transferred in language. With no knowledge of "pink unicorn", it can be described minimally with the attributes "pink", "horse", and "horn". Only then can the proposition be accepted or rejected. The acceptance or rejection of the proposition is distinct from the concept. Relationship to other non-theist perspectives Steven J. Conifer contrasts theological noncognitivism with positive atheism, which describes not only a lack of a belief in gods but furthermore denies that gods exist thereby giving credence to the existence of a concept of something for "God" to refer to, because it assumes that there is something understandable to not believe in. %DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% %DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% Paul Kurtz finds the view to be compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism. However, Theodore Drange distinguishes noncognitivism and agnosticism, describing the latter as accepting that theological language is meaningful but being noncommittal about its truth or falsity on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
R
– specifically,
, particularly
R
– are not cognitively meaningful. It is sometimes
, are not intelligible or meaningful, and thus sentences like "God exists" are cognitively meaningless. It may be
A
(also called igtheism), a term coined in 1964 by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism
R
Overview
Arguments
D
Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press, 1990. Martin, Michael. "Positive Atheism and The Meaninglessness of Theism", Infidels.org
R
It is asserted by
Relationship to other non-theist perspectives
R
that to be a positive atheist, one who not only lacks a
contrasts theological noncognitivism with positive atheism, which describes not only a lack of a
D
who
R
, is to give
thereby giving
R
God
"God"
D
Conifer, Steven J. "Theological Noncognitivism Examined" (archive)
D
See also Newton's flaming laser sword Problem of religious language
D
References
D
External links
D
Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) by Theodore M. Drange The Argument from Non-Cognitivism, by James Lazarus, is a discussion of Smith-style noncognitivism.
R
Category:Irreligion
Paul Kurtz finds the view to be compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism. However, Theodore Drange distinguishes noncognitivism and agnosticism, describing the latter as accepting that theological language is meaningful but being noncommittal about its truth or falsity on the grounds of insufficient evidence.