IS RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE MEANINGFUL? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Yes, Religious Language is Meaningful as a Non-Cognitive Attitude
CR: Hare’s ‘Bliks’ show Religious Language is Meaningful to the Individual
INTRO: Religious language refers to statements about religion such as ‘God exists’ and can
either be cognitive or non-cognitive. Cognitivism argues that religious claims like ‘God exists’
are meaningful since they are truth-apt beliefs which aim to describe the world, whereas
non-cognitivism claims religious statements express non-cognitive attitudes and ways of
understanding the world. The verification and falsification principle argue that religious
language is meaningless, since it isn't cognitive, while Mitchell and Hare claim religious
language holds a different sort of meaning. I will argue that while religious language is not
cognitive, it is still meaningful to the individual. The crucial reason for this is Hare’s ‘blik’
argument, demonstrated in his parable of the paranoid university student, which shows how
religious language could be non-cognitive, yet meaningful.
PARA 1 - AYER’S VERIFICATIONISM:
P) Outline Ayer’s Verification Principle (Religious Language is Not Cognitive, so Not
Meaningful
A) Hick’s Eschatological Verificationism + Parable of the Celestial City
C) Relies on God
A) Verification Principle is Self-Refuting
E) Ayer’s Verification Principle Fails, and is Rejected even by Ayer, so Fails to prove
Religious Language Meaningless
PARA 2 - FLEW’S FALSIFICATION:
P) Outline Flew’s Falsification Principle + Parable of the Invisible Gardener
A) Mitchell’s Parable of the Partisan
C) Falsification becomes Verification, so it fails
E) Religious Language is not Cognitively meaningful, but can still be meaningful in a
Different Way, to Individuals.
PARA 3 - HARE’S BLIKS:
P) Outline Hare’s Bliks + Parable of the Paranoid University Student
A) Is this what Religious Believers Mean?
C) Religious Language may be meant in a Cognitive Way, but is Non-cognitive (Changing
Religion + Wittgenstein’s Language Games)
E) Hare shows that Religious Language is Meaningful even if it is Not Cognitive
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, while religious language may not be meaningful in the
cognitive sense required by verification or falsification principles, it still holds significant
meaning in other ways. Mitchell shows that faith can persist despite contrary evidence, and
crucially Hare’s theory of ‘bliks’ provides a convincing explanation for how religious language
expresses non-cognitive worldviews that shape how individuals interpret their experiences.
Therefore, even if religious language cannot be verified or falsified, it remains meaningful as
an expression of a person’s attitude, commitments, and way of seeing the world.
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Yes, Religious Language is Meaningful as a Non-Cognitive Attitude
CR: Hare’s ‘Bliks’ show Religious Language is Meaningful to the Individual
INTRO: Religious language refers to statements about religion such as ‘God exists’ and can
either be cognitive or non-cognitive. Cognitivism argues that religious claims like ‘God exists’
are meaningful since they are truth-apt beliefs which aim to describe the world, whereas
non-cognitivism claims religious statements express non-cognitive attitudes and ways of
understanding the world. The verification and falsification principle argue that religious
language is meaningless, since it isn't cognitive, while Mitchell and Hare claim religious
language holds a different sort of meaning. I will argue that while religious language is not
cognitive, it is still meaningful to the individual. The crucial reason for this is Hare’s ‘blik’
argument, demonstrated in his parable of the paranoid university student, which shows how
religious language could be non-cognitive, yet meaningful.
PARA 1 - AYER’S VERIFICATIONISM:
P) Outline Ayer’s Verification Principle (Religious Language is Not Cognitive, so Not
Meaningful
A) Hick’s Eschatological Verificationism + Parable of the Celestial City
C) Relies on God
A) Verification Principle is Self-Refuting
E) Ayer’s Verification Principle Fails, and is Rejected even by Ayer, so Fails to prove
Religious Language Meaningless
PARA 2 - FLEW’S FALSIFICATION:
P) Outline Flew’s Falsification Principle + Parable of the Invisible Gardener
A) Mitchell’s Parable of the Partisan
C) Falsification becomes Verification, so it fails
E) Religious Language is not Cognitively meaningful, but can still be meaningful in a
Different Way, to Individuals.
PARA 3 - HARE’S BLIKS:
P) Outline Hare’s Bliks + Parable of the Paranoid University Student
A) Is this what Religious Believers Mean?
C) Religious Language may be meant in a Cognitive Way, but is Non-cognitive (Changing
Religion + Wittgenstein’s Language Games)
E) Hare shows that Religious Language is Meaningful even if it is Not Cognitive
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, while religious language may not be meaningful in the
cognitive sense required by verification or falsification principles, it still holds significant
meaning in other ways. Mitchell shows that faith can persist despite contrary evidence, and
crucially Hare’s theory of ‘bliks’ provides a convincing explanation for how religious language
expresses non-cognitive worldviews that shape how individuals interpret their experiences.
Therefore, even if religious language cannot be verified or falsified, it remains meaningful as
an expression of a person’s attitude, commitments, and way of seeing the world.
