|
||
Definition:
Cognitivism is the view there exists knowledge or the capability of acquiring
knowledge, relative to some field of inquiry. Noncognitivism is the opposite, arguing
that knowledge in the relevant field cannot be acquired. Usually, you will find the
concept expressed in debates about two areas: ethics and the existence of gods.
In ethics, noncognitivism takes the position that when people express moral judgments, they are not making claims of knowledge or making propositions which can possibly have any cognitive, epistemic, or truth value. They are, instead, simply making a statement about their emotions (subjectivism) or they are making a raw expression of emotion (emotivists). Noncognitivists will often focus on the social function of ethical discourse, pointing out how it serves to negotiate social disagreements and construct both social boundaries and social cohesion, rather than describe factual states of affairs in the world.
In debates about the existence of god, the noncognitivist position asserts that the statement "God exists," which looks like a proposition, is not actually any such thing. An investigation into whether the above and similar sentences can have truth value was perhaps first broached by the logical positivist A.J. Ayer and has been further explored by Michael Martin, who has written that "a case can be made that religious language is unverifiable and hence factually meaningless when it is used in a sophisticated and nonanthropomorphic way."
A general noncognitive approach to debates between atheists and theists is not just useful, but it is important enough that many of the problems and misunderstandings which develop in such debates probably result from a failure of the atheist to take that approach. The atheist should not assume that she always knows what the theist means by "god." The noncognitive approach makes up for this by requiring the atheist to adopt a position of strict agnosticism: I don't know what you are talking about and I won't assume I know, so you will have to explain it to me.
By forcing the theist to take the time to describe what he means by "god," the atheist will either get a clear idea of what is meant by "god," thus perhaps allowing for a clear and logical refutation, or the atheist will realize that even the theist doesn't know what he means by god. In that case, his statement that "god exists" really is noncognitive. Because it is not a proposition which can have a truth value, there is no point in the atheist bothering to try and refute it.
Also Known As: none
Alternate Spellings: none
Common Misspellings: none
Related Resources:
What are Ethics and Morality?
Ethics is the formal study of moral standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy." What is good? What is evil? How should I behave - and why? How should I balance my needs against the needs of others?What is Philosophy?
What is philosophy? Is there any point in studying philosophy, or is it a useless subject? What are the different branches of philosophy - what's the difference between aestheitcs and ethics? What's the difference between metaphysics and epistemology?
