Critically examine Braithwaite's non-cognitive theory of religious language.

The Context: Logical Positivism and the Verification Principle

Logical positivism, dominant in the early 20th century, asserted that only statements verifiable through empirical observation or logical analysis are cognitively meaningful. Statements about God, morality, or metaphysics were deemed meaningless because they could not be subjected to such verification. This posed a significant problem for religious language, which often makes claims about realities beyond empirical experience.

Braithwaite’s Non-Cognitive Theory

Braithwaite rejected the idea that religious statements are factual claims that can be either true or false. He argued that they function differently. Instead of asserting propositions about a transcendent reality, religious statements are primarily expressions of ‘commitments’ or ‘intentions’. When someone says “God is love,” they aren’t stating a fact *about* God, but rather expressing their commitment to act lovingly and to live according to principles they associate with divine love.

Key Features of Braithwaite’s Theory:

• Rejection of Falsifiability: Religious statements are not subject to empirical verification or falsification.
• Expression of Commitments: They function as expressions of attitudes, feelings, and intentions.
• Practical Role: Religious language serves a practical role in shaping behavior and fostering community.
• Pseudo-Statements: Braithwaite termed religious statements as ‘pseudo-statements’ – they *look* like statements but don’t function as assertions.

Critical Examination: Strengths of the Theory

Braithwaite’s theory offers several strengths:

• Avoids Meaninglessness: It avoids the charge of meaninglessness leveled by logical positivists by reinterpreting religious language.
• Explains Religious Practice: It provides a plausible explanation for why people engage in religious practices and find meaning in religious beliefs, even without empirical evidence.
• Focus on Ethical Implications: It highlights the ethical and practical implications of religious belief, emphasizing the importance of commitment and action.

Critical Examination: Weaknesses and Objections

Despite its strengths, Braithwaite’s theory faces several criticisms:

• Sincerity Problem: If religious statements are merely expressions of commitment, how can we distinguish between sincere and insincere expressions? Someone could profess a commitment to love without genuinely feeling it.
• Universality Problem: If religious language is purely subjective, how can we account for the shared meanings and traditions within religious communities? The theory struggles to explain the intersubjective nature of religious belief.
• Loss of Cognitive Content: Critics argue that Braithwaite’s theory strips religious language of its cognitive content, reducing it to mere emotive expression. This diminishes the intellectual depth and explanatory power of religious beliefs.
• The Problem of Disagreement: If religious statements aren’t assertions, how can religious disagreements be meaningful? If two people express different commitments, it’s unclear what they are disagreeing *about*.
• Wittgenstein’s Influence & Limitations: Braithwaite heavily draws from Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, particularly the concept of ‘language games’. However, critics argue he doesn’t fully appreciate the nuances of Wittgenstein’s approach, leading to an oversimplified interpretation.

Alternative Perspectives

Several alternative perspectives challenge Braithwaite’s theory. John Hick, for example, proposes a verification-by-experience approach, arguing that religious experiences can provide a form of verification. Others, like Basil Mitchell, argue for a ‘baffle-ment’ approach, suggesting that religious language is inherently paradoxical and cannot be fully understood through logical analysis. These perspectives attempt to retain some cognitive content for religious language while acknowledging its limitations.