Cognitivism vs Non-cognitivism

• Conservative interpretations of the Bible

  Accept the message of the Bible as authentic and a general message from God. Accepting the role of scholarship and so not interpreting every word as literal. The Bible contains objective universal teachings.
• Liberal interpretations of the Bible

  It needs to be interpreted for our own times. This view has led to a non-cognitive approach. It suggests that scripture is not making factual assertions but presenting a non-literal view of the world.
• Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible

  More recent movement that accepts the bible as 100% factually correct. A cognitive approach to the Bible.
• Religious texts should be interpreted both cognitively and non-cognitively

  It may depend on the context of it's use, or the type of writing found within the texts. This may be nearer to Wittgenstein's ideas of the form of life - some will be cognitive, others non-cognitive, both are valuable, neither is a better or worse approach than the other.
• Religious texts transcend time and place - they have a message that is relevant to everyone because they talk about God, an objective reality. So interpretations of religious texts are cognitive and point to a universal truth.
• Non-cognitivism undermines the importance of events such as the resurrection for Christians.
• Fundamentalists argue that the texts should be interpreted un a cognitive, literal way. The message should not be diluted because it is a truth claim.
• Since religious statements are not scientific, it can be argued they are neither factual nor cognitive.
• Religious statements are not like scientific claims, whether they are true is a different question.
• All language should not be treated as scientific. Like poetry or music religious language cannot be said to be true or false. It is beyond scientific criteria - non-cognitive