Theological non-cognitivism posits the improbability of articulating; quintessentially, what god is in propositional logic. I conversed with a bishop not too long ago and the query he stated was: do you believe in god? My response was: I don’t understand the question.


In elementary phases of the English language, we learn propositional phrases contain truth values—they possess true and false statements; however, cannot contain both simultaneously. An example would be:the moon is made up of yogurt. Albeit, this statement is false, it still posits a truth value; it can be proven true or false. However, to state: god exists is problematic—for god cannot be defined in comprehensible terms; thus, cannot withstand scrutiny under the guise of truth values.


With the entire linguistic acrobatics theologians purport, if their claims cannot pass the elementary stage of propositional logic, the conversation is dead before it starts. By the way, our conversation only lasted five minutes; the bishop didn’t know what god is either; the gavel landed!

Views: 251

Replies to This Discussion

Because of the god concepts lack of a coherent set of boundaries or perceptual properties such as height, weight, depth, breadth, age, origin, life span, color, texture, odor, tonality etcetera (which all real things have ) it is merely an empty figure of speech, not a noun by any measure that is sensible at all. It is a whim. purported by clergy and it's devotees to claim the prerogatives of real living people and it is therefore treason against the species itself.

Clarence; an interesting point you disclosed: treason against the species itself.


It would seem this societal meme has damaged the proclivity of humanities motivation: to reason without the phantasmal. 

I agree Clarence -- the word god is an empty figure of speech and therefore treason against the species itself.

Non-cognitivism?  Are you an academic?  Whew! Just spent a confusing bit of time on wikipedia.  But you are right, linguistic acrobatics are the theologians best friend. In fact perhaps some of the core problems we have with theists are these kinds of language based semantic differences.  Many theists when questioned define a Spinoza/Dawkins type god totally contrary to church teachings.  But they still go to church because they don't deconstruct what religion is doing, they ride the tide because they need a community. 



That is precisely what church provides: a community. However, at what expense does the yearning for communal aggregation impede upon one's intellectual sanity? They have welcomed the former to eradicate the latter.


An academic; well, I consider myself an autodidact; self-learner. Though I am in school for Industrial psychology, philosophy has always interested me sense my adolescent years. 

I've been watching talks by William Lane Craig and others, and I'm convinced these guys are experts at a kind of verbal sleight-of-hand.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service