Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism
Introduction to the debate
The question of whether religious language should be understood cognitively or non-cognitively is central to debates about religious language. This concerns whether religious statements make factual claims about reality that can be true or false, or whether they serve a different purpose altogether.
Cognitivism holds that religious statements make factual assertions about reality. These claims can, in principle, be verified or falsified.
Non-cognitivism argues that religious language does not make factual claims. Instead, it expresses attitudes, commitments, or ways of seeing the world.
Key positions on religious language
Hick's eschatological verification (cognitive approach)
John Hick argues that religious language is cognitive because it can be verified eschatologically - that is, after death.
Hick's Argument: Key Features
- Religious claims, particularly Christian claims, make factual assertions about reality
- These claims will be verified through experience in the afterlife
- The truth or falsity of religious beliefs can be established definitively after death
- This makes religious language meaningful and factual
Evaluation of Hick's position:
The argument has logical coherence - if there is an afterlife, verification would occur. However, there is a significant weakness that must be considered.
The Asymmetry Problem
If there is no life after death, believers will never discover their beliefs have been falsified. This asymmetry means verification is possible but falsification is not.
Exam tip: When discussing Hick's eschatological verification, always consider both the possibility of verification and the problem of falsification. This shows critical evaluation.
Hare's bliks (non-cognitive approach)
R. M. Hare proposes that religious statements are non-cognitive. He introduces the concept of bliks to explain religious language.
What are bliks?
- Bliks are fundamental, non-falsifiable views of the world
- They function as interpretative frameworks through which we understand our experiences
- Religious beliefs are bliks that shape how believers interpret reality
- They cannot be verified or falsified because they determine what counts as evidence
Flew's criticism of Hare:
Antony Flew rejects Hare's position, arguing that most religious believers understand their beliefs as making factual claims. Flew describes non-cognitive religious statements as 'dialectical dud-cheques' - they promise meaning but deliver nothing of substance.
If religious language makes no factual claims, it becomes worthless according to Flew. This challenges the non-cognitive approach by questioning whether it truly reflects how believers understand their own faith.
Wittgenstein's language games (non-cognitive approach)
Ludwig Wittgenstein's approach to religious language also falls within non-cognitivism.
Key features:
- Religious language operates within its own 'language game' with its own rules and criteria for meaning
- It should not be judged by the standards of scientific or everyday language
- Religious language is meaningful within its own context and community
Evaluation of Wittgenstein's position:
This approach protects religious language from scientific criticism. However, important concerns arise about its implications.
The Isolation Problem
If religious language only makes sense within its own framework, productive conversation between believers and non-believers becomes difficult. This isolation from broader discourse may be unhealthy for religious communities, preventing meaningful dialogue across different worldviews.
Strengths of cognitivism
Understanding religious language as cognitive has several advantages:
Clarity and accessibility:
Cognitive religious language makes factual claims that are clear and straightforward. These claims are open to examination by anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. This transparency promotes honest enquiry.
Reflects believers' self-understanding:
Most religious believers are cognitivists in practice. They genuinely hold that their beliefs are factual, not merely expressions of attitude.
Hick's Analysis
This view is supported by Hick's analysis of religious belief. Believers are committed to their beliefs precisely because they consider them to be true statements about reality. They do not typically think of their beliefs as non-cognitive bliks or mere expressions of perspective.
Strengths of non-cognitivism
The non-cognitive approach to religious language also has significant strengths:
Avoids inappropriate comparisons:
Non-cognitivism does not treat religious language as if it were scientific language. This helps avoid the challenges raised by logical positivists and falsificationists. Religious language is protected from demands for empirical verification.
Reflects religious diversity:
Non-cognitivism acknowledges the distinctive views and commitments of religious people. It recognises that religious bliks shape how individuals interpret their experiences. This approach, as Hare emphasises, respects the personal nature of religious belief.
Multiple forms of meaning:
Non-cognitivism accepts that there can be many different ways in which language can be meaningful. Not all meaningful language needs to make factual claims. This broader understanding of meaning accommodates the rich diversity of religious expression.
The problem with this debate:
What cognitivists see as strengths, non-cognitivists view as weaknesses, and vice versa. This creates an impasse in the discussion.
Combining cognitivism and non-cognitivism
It is not necessary to conclude that religious language is entirely cognitive or entirely non-cognitive. A more nuanced approach recognises that religious language may contain both elements.
Why a combined approach makes sense:
Not all cognitivists agree on what counts as factual within religious language. Consider beliefs about resurrection, heaven, hell, and purgatory - Christians interpret these in various ways.
A Christian might hold a cognitive understanding of bodily resurrection whilst viewing hell non-cognitively, seeing it as a psychological state resulting from one's thoughts and actions. This shows that Christians themselves may hold both cognitive and non-cognitive beliefs simultaneously.
Hick's combined approach
John Hick provides an example of how cognitivism and non-cognitivism can work together:
Mythological language:
Hick acknowledges that mythological language in the Bible is non-literal and non-cognitive. However, myth serves an important function: it evokes an appropriate response towards God (the Real). Myths become embedded in religious tradition and shape believers' dispositions.
The Fall Narrative
The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden can be understood as:
- A mythic narrative that expresses a profound truth about human existence
- A way of capturing the reality that human life is lived in alienation from God, from others, and from the natural world
- A story that has become ingrained in Christian tradition and shapes how believers understand their relationship with God
The core of factual claims:
Despite accepting non-cognitive elements, Hick maintains that the Christian belief system as a whole is fact-asserting. The truth-claims are cognitive and will be verified in the afterlife. These core claims have a genuinely factual character. They provide an experientially verifiable foundation that establishes the belief system as factually true or false.
The relationship between cognitive and non-cognitive elements:
There is ample scope for non-factual language of myth, symbol, and poetry. These non-cognitive elements express the believer's awareness of the mysteries surrounding the core religious facts. Religious language thus contains both elements working together.
Exam tip: Hick's combined approach is particularly useful in essays. It shows sophisticated understanding that avoids the either/or trap and recognises the complexity of religious language.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Cognitivism treats religious language as making factual claims that can be true or false; non-cognitivism sees religious language as expressing attitudes, commitments, or worldviews rather than facts.
-
Key cognitive approach: Hick's eschatological verification argues religious claims will be factually verified after death, though this faces the problem that falsification cannot occur if there is no afterlife.
-
Key non-cognitive approaches: Hare's bliks (non-falsifiable worldviews) and Wittgenstein's language games both treat religious language as non-factual, though Flew criticises bliks as 'dialectical dud-cheques' if believers genuinely think their beliefs are factual.
-
Strengths vary by perspective: Cognitivism offers clarity and reflects how most believers understand their faith; non-cognitivism avoids treating religious language like science and acknowledges multiple forms of meaning.
-
A combined approach is possible: Hick demonstrates that religious language can contain both cognitive elements (core factual claims verified eschatologically) and non-cognitive elements (myth, symbol, poetry expressing religious mystery). Christians may hold both cognitive and non-cognitive beliefs simultaneously.