The method or approach of the logical positivists, which claims that only scientific language can be meaningful - i.e. language which is empirically verifiable
For language to be meaningful, a statement must be either analytic (true by definition) or empirically verifiable (we can test whether it is true or false through experience)
A statement must be either verifiable in practice, meaning we are able to verify it, or verifiable in principle, meaning that we know that there is a way to verify it even if we are currently unable
However, if there is no afterlife, we won't know. If death is annihilation there won't be a moment of realisation of that. So Hick has only shown that religious language is possibly verifiable in principle, but not actually verifiable in principle
Popper's theory that science doesn't work by just looking for things which verify a theory - it works through trying to prove its theories wrong - looking for falsifications
Asserting that 'X' is the case is equivalent to asserting that 'not X' is not the case. We could imagine that X is not the case, which would be imagining how our assertion 'X' could be false. So, all assertions must be falsifiable
Most religious people base their belief in God on the evidence of their personal experience and relationship with God, and their belief can actually be countered by evidence (is falsifiable) because of the problem of evil
Most religious people would reject Hare's theory, claiming they are expressing a cognitive belief that God exists, not just their personal feelings/attitudes
However, Aquinas' reasons for creating the cosmological argument could still be to rationalise his emotions and attitudes, even if the argument itself is logical
It can express beliefs, but those beliefs are not scientific - they are meant to express participation in a social game. So religious language is not-cognitive.