Philosophy · Year 13 · Metaphysics of God: Evil and Language · 2.º Período

The Nature of Religious Language

An introduction to the debate over whether religious language is meaningful. Students will distinguish between cognitive and non-cognitive uses of language in theology.

TL;DR:This topic explores whether language used to describe God is meaningful. Students distinguish between cognitivism (religious claims describe facts about the world) and non-cognitivism (religious claims express emotions or attitudes). This is a pivotal shift in the curriculum from 'what is God?' to 'how can we even talk about God?'.

• National Curriculum Attainment Targets
• AQA A-Level Philosophy 7172: 3.2.1.4 Religious language
• DfE Philosophy AS and A-level subject content: Religious language

About This Topic

This topic explores whether language used to describe God is meaningful. Students distinguish between cognitivism (religious claims describe facts about the world) and non-cognitivism (religious claims express emotions or attitudes). This is a pivotal shift in the curriculum from 'what is God?' to 'how can we even talk about God?'.

The debate involves complex linguistic theories that can feel abstract. By using student-centered strategies, teachers can help students apply these theories to everyday language, making the distinction between 'fact-stating' and 'expression' clearer. This topic is essential for developing the high-level analytical skills required by the National Curriculum, particularly in evaluating the limits of human knowledge and expression.

Key Questions

1. Is religious language meant to be taken literally?
2. Can statements about God be empirically verified?
3. What is the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism?

Watch Out for These Misconceptions

Common Misconception

Non-cognitivism means religious language is 'fake' or 'useless'.

What to Teach Instead

Non-cognitivists argue it is highly meaningful, just not in a scientific way. Using role play to show how 'I love you' is meaningful but not a scientific hypothesis helps clarify this.

Common Misconception

All religious people are cognitivists.

What to Teach Instead

Many theologians argue that God is so 'other' that language can only ever be symbolic or metaphorical. Peer-led research into different denominations can surface these diverse perspectives.

Active Learning Ideas

Gallery Walk

Fact or Feeling?

Students walk around the room looking at statements like 'God loves me', 'The cat is on the mat', and 'Murder is wrong'. They must categorise each as cognitive or non-cognitive and explain their reasoning on a sticky note.

30 min·Small Groups

Think-Pair-Share

The Meaning of 'God is Good'

Students discuss what they mean when they say a person is 'good' versus when they say God is 'good'. This introduces the concept of analogy (Aquinas) and the difficulty of using human language for a divine being.

15 min·Pairs

Inquiry Circle

Mapping Non-Cognitivism

Groups are assigned a non-cognitive theory (e.g., Randall's symbolic view or Braithwaite's moral view). they must create a 'user manual' for religious language based on that theory, explaining how a believer should use words.

30 min·Small Groups

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between cognitive and non-cognitive language?

Cognitive language makes claims that can be true or false (e.g., 'The capital of France is Paris'). Non-cognitive language does not make truth claims but expresses emotions, commands, or attitudes (e.g., 'Hooray!' or 'Don't steal').

Why is the nature of religious language a problem?

If God is infinite and transcendent, our finite, human words might not be able to describe him accurately. This leads to the question of whether religious talk is literally true, or just a helpful way of expressing human values.

How can active learning help students understand religious language?

Active learning, like the 'Fact or Feeling?' gallery walk, helps students see that the 'meaning' of a sentence depends on how it is used. This practical approach makes the abstract theories of Ayer or Wittgenstein much more accessible.

What is 'Via Negativa'?

Also known as the apophatic way, it is the idea that we can only say what God is *not* (e.g., God is not finite), because our positive words are too limited to describe what God *is*.