conclusions to the cognitive vs non-cognitive issue

• strengths of cognitivism:

  • makes factual claims that are clear + open to examine by anyone
  • most religious believers are cognitivists - they hold their beliefs as factual e.g. Hick - they are committed to these beliefs because they think they are factual, not because they think they are non-cognitive bliks
• strengths of non-cognitivism

  • it avoids the view that religious language can be scientific, so avoids the verificationist and falsificationist challenges
  • it reflects the distinctive views + commitments of religious people (their bliks)
  • it acknowledges that religious language is one of many different ways in which language can be meaningful
• the strengths of cognitivism are seen as weaknesses by non-cognitivists + visa versa, so not much progress is made

  • a reasonable conclusion that religious language is both cognitive + non-cognitive