06 Aug '13 14:20>3 edits
I thought that this might be an interesting topic for discussion, following on the “atheism is a belief system” thread.
The passages below are from the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism
“Theological noncognitivists claim that all alleged definitions for the term "God" amount to "God is that which caused everything but God", which "defines God in terms of God", thus is circular.”
"George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for the term "God": he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.
“Another way of expressing theological noncognitivism is, for any sentence S, S is cognitively meaningless if and only if S expresses an unthinkable proposition or S does not express a proposition. The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although some may say that the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable. Similarly, Y is what it is does not express a meaningful proposition except in a familiar conversational context. In this sense to claim to believe in X or Y is a meaningless assertion in the same way as I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously is grammatically correct but without meaning.
“Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread claim of "belief in God" and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition. However this depends on the specific definition of God being used.[3] However, most theological noncognitivists do not believe that any of the definitions used by modern day theists are coherent.”
________________________________________________________
Basically, theological noncognitivism seems to claim that the sign “god” not has no referent, but has no coherent signified (meaning). * That is, “god” is simply not a meaningful concept at all—and it is an error to think that, because one can make grammatical statements including the sign “god” as subject/object, one knows what she/he is talking, or thinking, about (Wittgenstein’s “bewitchment by language” ).
I suggest that theological noncognitivism is a sound position for any use of the sign “god” that includes the supernatural, as twhitehead has convinced me that the supernatural category is meaningless (e.g., can only be “defined” negatively—as what is not-nature—even if seemingly "positive" terms are used, such as "spirit" ). This is, of course, the conventional use of the word “god”, in “western” culture anyway. **
______________________________________________________
* I am ignoring the “verificationist” view of theological noncognitivism, because I think that verificationism as a theory of meaning has problems.
** There are, and historically long have been, naturalist (that is, non-supernaturalist) usages of ”god”. For example, for the Stoics, theos was the logos (rational principle or coherency) of the natural universe (phusis: nature) as activated/expressed by the fundamental energy of the universe (which they called pneuma, and associated with the fire, or the combined fire/air, element in what was their physics). Theos was the word they used to represent this triadic understanding of the observable cosmos as embodying the coherent generation of material form. In any event, nonsupernaturalist expressions for the sign “god” may be coherent/meaningful—and I thinkl would have to be udged on a case-by-case basis.
The passages below are from the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism
“Theological noncognitivists claim that all alleged definitions for the term "God" amount to "God is that which caused everything but God", which "defines God in terms of God", thus is circular.”
"George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for the term "God": he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.
“Another way of expressing theological noncognitivism is, for any sentence S, S is cognitively meaningless if and only if S expresses an unthinkable proposition or S does not express a proposition. The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although some may say that the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable. Similarly, Y is what it is does not express a meaningful proposition except in a familiar conversational context. In this sense to claim to believe in X or Y is a meaningless assertion in the same way as I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously is grammatically correct but without meaning.
“Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread claim of "belief in God" and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition. However this depends on the specific definition of God being used.[3] However, most theological noncognitivists do not believe that any of the definitions used by modern day theists are coherent.”
________________________________________________________
Basically, theological noncognitivism seems to claim that the sign “god” not has no referent, but has no coherent signified (meaning). * That is, “god” is simply not a meaningful concept at all—and it is an error to think that, because one can make grammatical statements including the sign “god” as subject/object, one knows what she/he is talking, or thinking, about (Wittgenstein’s “bewitchment by language” ).
I suggest that theological noncognitivism is a sound position for any use of the sign “god” that includes the supernatural, as twhitehead has convinced me that the supernatural category is meaningless (e.g., can only be “defined” negatively—as what is not-nature—even if seemingly "positive" terms are used, such as "spirit" ). This is, of course, the conventional use of the word “god”, in “western” culture anyway. **
______________________________________________________
* I am ignoring the “verificationist” view of theological noncognitivism, because I think that verificationism as a theory of meaning has problems.
** There are, and historically long have been, naturalist (that is, non-supernaturalist) usages of ”god”. For example, for the Stoics, theos was the logos (rational principle or coherency) of the natural universe (phusis: nature) as activated/expressed by the fundamental energy of the universe (which they called pneuma, and associated with the fire, or the combined fire/air, element in what was their physics). Theos was the word they used to represent this triadic understanding of the observable cosmos as embodying the coherent generation of material form. In any event, nonsupernaturalist expressions for the sign “god” may be coherent/meaningful—and I thinkl would have to be udged on a case-by-case basis.