The Cognitivity of Religious Language

Abstract

Religious language has been challenged by verificationists as not cognitive, and so religious claims have no meaning. This challenge fails, because even limited versions of verificationism are untenable. Some have granted that religious language has meaning, but does not make assertions, so is neither true nor false. Some have argued that religious language belongs to a different practice from ordinary language, and so should not be assessed according to ordinary understandings of rationality. Both of these charges have untenable consequences.