Non-Cognitive Language Causes More Problems Than It Solves. Discuss

944 Words Mar 24th, 2013 4 Pages
“NON COGNITIVE LANGUAGE CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES” DISCUSS.

The statement in the title is suggesting that non-cognitive language, or non-factual language, is inefficient at attempting to solve the relevant and evident issues with religious language. In this essay I will argue that although there are several innate flaws with non-cognitive language, I, on occasion, actually find it more helpful than cognitive language. This is because when using cognitive language it is often that people find themselves far more concerned with the meaning of the words, rather than the message, which they are trying to convey. This can often result in ‘loaded language’. But with non-cognitive the sole aim is to convey a meaning in a simple and
…show more content…
Cognitive language, for the most part, does manage to solve these problems since it goes right to the core of the issue, and analyses every part. So the efficiency of the cognitive approach is extremely helpful. This is because it is more helpful than non-cognitive since non-cognitive attempts to convey vague and transcendent truth’s that are open to incorrect interpretation. Hence why it is abundantly clear that non-cognitive language causes more problems than it solves because the meanings that are deciphered from myth (which is non cognitive) are prone to produce error and confusion.
I also think that the non-cognitive approach ‘analogy’, is also unhelpful in its attempts to solve the ever-present problems of religious language. ‘Equivocal’ language, which means language that can have separate meanings, for example the word ‘sink’ could be used to describe a kitchen utensil or to be submerged within a liquid. This cognitive approach of interpreting religious language is highly unsuccessful because it is far too vague and it leaves far too much room for error. This is because we can easily misinterpret the meaning of scripture and take from it the completely wrong conclusion. For example we could potentially have misinterpreted the Decalogue and God had truly meant to say ‘thou shall murder’. Analogy also seems to suffer from this issue because there is no given ‘meaning’ within it, it is an agent based
Open Document