Theological noncognitivism is thenon-theist position thatreligious language, particularlytheological terminology such as 'God', is notintelligible ormeaningful, and thus sentences like 'God exists' are cognitivelymeaningless.[1] This would also imply that sentences like the negation of 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' are likewise meaningless, i.e., neither true nor false. It may be considered synonymous withignosticism (also calledigtheism), a term coined in 1964 bySherwin Wine, arabbi and a founding figure ofHumanistic Judaism.[2]
Theological noncognitivists argue in different ways, depending on what one considers the "theory of meaning" to be.
One argument holds to the claim that definitions of God areirreducible, self-institutingrelational,circular. For example, a sentence stating that "God is He who created everything, apart from Himself", is seen as circular rather than an irreducible truth.
Michael Martin writing from averificationist perspective concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable.[3][4]
George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is noconcept for God: he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, onlynegatively defined orrelational 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 that 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.[5][6]
Steven J. Conifer contrasts theological noncognitivism withpositive 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 tonot believe in.[1]
Paul Kurtz finds the view to be compatible with bothweak atheism andagnosticism.[7] 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.[8]
Both [atheism and agnosticism] are consistent with igtheism, which finds the belief in a metaphysical, transcendent being basically incoherent and unintelligible.
| Conceptions of God |
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of God |
| ||||||||||||
| Theology |
| ||||||||||||
(by date active) |
| ||||||||||||
| Related topics | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
