Theological noncognitivism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:38, 13 July 2018

Overview

Theological noncognitivists claim that they are not able to understand why theists, atheists, and agnostics all seem to believe that the theists' capitalized row of three alphabet letters "God", when spoken or written by Christians, Jews or Muslims, is a meaningful word. Theological noncognitivists claim not to know of any reason to believe that it is. Theological noncognitivists do not claim, as do atheists, that "God" refers to something nonexistent. Theological noncognitivists do not claim to know of any reason to believe "God" refers to anything at all, whether existent or nonexistent. In other words, atheists believe "God" is like the meaningful word "unicorn", referring to something nonexistent. But theological noncognitivists claim not to know of any reason to believe that. They claim not to see any difference between "God" and, say, the meaningless row of alphabet letters "Gop" -- except for:

1. the last letter of "Gop" is "p" and not "d",

and

2. theological noncognitivists have observed that"God" seems to cause theists to get into a certain emotional state of humbleness, fear and awe, whereas "Gop" doesn't seem to have that or any effect upon theists.

Theological noncognitivists claim not to be able to see any difference(s) between "God" and "Gop", other than the above two.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
- {{Refimprove|date=October 2012}}
-{{Atheism sidebar |arguments}}
-'''Theological noncognitivism''' is the position that [[Religion|religious]] language –&nbsp;specifically, words such as "[[God]]"&nbsp;– are not [[Cognition|cognitive]]ly [[Meaning (philosophy of language)|meaning]]ful. It is sometimes considered as synonymous with [[ignosticism]].
 ==Overview==
+Theological noncognitivists claim that they are not able to understand why theists, atheists, and agnostics all seem to believe that the theists' capitalized row of three alphabet letters "God", when spoken or written by Christians, Jews or Muslims, is a meaningful word. Theological noncognitivists claim not to know of any reason to believe that it is.  Theological noncognitivists do not claim, as do atheists, that "God" refers to something nonexistent. Theological noncognitivists do not claim to know of any reason to believe "God" refers to anything at all, whether existent or nonexistent. In other words, atheists believe "God" is like the meaningful word "unicorn", referring to something nonexistent. But theological noncognitivists claim not to know of any reason to believe that. They claim not to see any difference between "God" and, say, the meaningless row of alphabet letters "Gop" -- except for:
-Theological noncognitivists argue in different ways, depending on what one considers the "[[meaning (philosophy of language)|theory of meaning]]" to be.
-One argument holds to the claim that definitions of God are [[wikt:irreducible|irreducible]], self-instituting [[wikt:relational|relational]],  [[wikt:circular|circular]]. For example, a sentence stating that "God is He who created everything, apart from Himself", is seen as circular rather than an [[irreducibility|irreducible]] truth.
-[[Michael Martin (philosopher)|Michael Martin]] writing from a [[verificationist]] perspective concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable.<ref>[[Michael Martin (philosopher)|Martin, Michael]]. ''Atheism: A Philosophical Justification''. [[Temple University Press]], 1990. {{ISBN|978-0-87722-642-0}}</ref><ref>Martin, Michael. "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/meaningless.html Positive Atheism and The Meaninglessness of Theism]", [[Infidels.org]]</ref>
-[[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 [[wikt:relational|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 an [[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.<ref>Conifer, Steven J. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090326144947/http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm  "Theological Noncognitivism Examined"] (archive)</ref>
-==See also==
-* [[Newton's flaming laser sword]]
-* [[Problem of religious language]]
+#1. the last letter of "Gop" is "p" and not "d",
-==Notes and references==
-{{Reflist|2}}
+and
-==External links==
-{{Wiktionary}}
-* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998)] by Theodore M. Drange
-* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ The Argument from Non-Cognitivism], by James Lazarus, is a discussion of Smith-style noncognitivism.
+#2. theological noncognitivists have observed that"God" seems to cause theists to get into a certain emotional state of humbleness, fear and awe, whereas "Gop" doesn't seem to have that or any effect upon theists.
-{{philosophy of religion}}
-{{philosophy of language}}
-{{Theology}}
-{{Irreligion}}
+Theological noncognitivists claim not to be able to see any difference(s) between "God" and "Gop", other than the above two.
-{{DEFAULTSORT:Theological Noncognitivism}}
-[[Category:Irreligion]]
-[[Category:Theology|Noncognitivism]]