A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 2Harlington School · Philosophy · Metaphysics of God

Cognitivism, non-cognitivism and the empiricist challenge

Looks like a fact, may not be one. Kind one: the words do not fit. Kind two: the job is different.

The
big
question

When a believer says 'God exists' or 'God loves us', are they stating a fact that could be true or false — or doing something else with words entirely?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The fact line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

A FACT · 'God exists' is true or false, like 'the kettle has boiled'NOT A FACT · it shows a feeling, a hope or a way of seeing

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

Every lesson in this unit answers one question: can 'God exists' mean anything if nothing could check it? Ayer, Hick, Flew, Hare and Mitchell each answer differently.

◀ Refer back · Other responses; evaluating the problem of evil
Does any response finally answer the problem of evil?

Last unit assumed 'God is all-good' is a claim that could be true or false. This unit asks: does it say anything at all?

Retrieve: Pick one sentence about God from the last unit. Write down what could ever show that it is false.
The big idea

Going from left to right, the sentence moves further from a plain fact. At the far end, Ayer and Flew say it may not MEAN anything at all. Every thinker answers two questions: is it a fact? Does it mean anything? Track both.

Look ahead · Verification: Ayer and the logical positivists ▶
Is a statement meaningless if no possible experience could verify it?

Next lesson: Ayer's test in detail. A sentence that no experience could check is meaningless — and that includes 'God exists'.

Prime: Predict: can a test like Ayer's rule out talk of God without also ruling out talk of the distant past?
01

The lessons in this unit

5 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Summer 2 · weeks 32–34. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 32

The map: does 'God exists' say anything at all?

The puzzle of religious language; cognitivism and non-cognitivism; the verification and falsification challenges and the three replies in outline.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 32

Verification: Ayer and the logical positivists

The Vienna Circle and Hume's fork; Ayer's strong and weak verification; 'God exists' as meaningless; the principle's self-refutation and other criticisms.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 33

Hick's eschatological verification

Verification in principle after death; the Celestial City; what would count as verification; the issues — identity, communication, one-way verification.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 33–34

Falsification: Flew and the invisible gardener

The University debate; Wisdom's gardener as Flew develops it; death by a thousand qualifications; whether falsification is a fair test of meaning.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 34

Hare's bliks and Mitchell's partisan

Hare's non-cognitivist bliks and their issues; Mitchell's partisan and the Stranger; weighing the whole debate — is religious language meaningful?

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four views of religious language, side by side

Can words built for this world describe God? The critics deny one thing. They say a sentence can LOOK like a fact and still not WORK like one. Our words were learned from things in this world. God is said to be beyond this world. So something strange happens when we talk about God. The problems come in two kinds. Kind one: the WORDS do not fit — everyday words stretched to describe God. Kind two: the JOB is different — the sentence comforts, prays or promises instead of stating a fact. Behind both waits a bigger challenge: does 'God exists' say anything at all?

Kind one

The words do not fit

The believer is stating a belief — but everyday words cannot keep their everyday meaning when they are used of God.
1The believer is not joking: she means 'The Lord is my shepherd' as a true belief about God.
2But we learned the word 'shepherd' from men in fields with sheep — things in this world.
3God is said to be beyond space, time and all our experience, so the word cannot keep its everyday meaning.
4So the problem is in the WORDS, not in what the believer is doing. That is what makes it kind one.
Strength It takes believers seriously. They have always said God is greater than our words. This view explains why — without saying their sentences are empty.
Weakness The more the words are stretched, the less they say. If 'shepherd' does not mean shepherd, it gets hard to say what the believer is claiming at all.
Kind two

The job is different

The words are plain — but the sentence is doing a different job: comforting, hoping or promising, not stating a fact.
1A cognitivist says a meaningful sentence reports a belief, so it is true or false — like 'the kettle has boiled'.
2A non-cognitivist says some sentences look like reports but do another job: they show a feeling, a hope or a commitment.
3The mourner's 'She is with God now' comforts the children. She does not treat it as something to test.
4So the problem is not in the words but in the JOB the sentence does. That is what makes it kind two.
Strength It listens to how religious language is really used: in prayer, at funerals, in worship. Much of it is not giving information at all.
Weakness Most believers think 'God exists' IS a fact. Non-cognitivism may save the sentence only by changing what believers mean by it.
The shape of the unit

Three replies: Hick, Hare, Mitchell

Every reply answers two questions — is it a fact, and does it mean anything? Hick and Mitchell say a fact; Hare says not a fact, but meaningful.
1Two questions run through the unit: is a religious sentence a FACT (true or false)? And does it MEAN anything?
2Hick: two travellers on one road will find out at the end who was right. So 'God exists' can be checked — after death.
3Mitchell: a soldier trusts a stranger even when the evidence looks bad. The evidence counts — he just does not let it decide.
4Hare: belief in God is a 'blik', a way of seeing everything. Not a fact — but still full of meaning.
Strength It gives you a map for the whole unit. Place any thinker by asking two questions: is it a fact or not? Does it mean anything or not?
Weakness Every reply pays a price. Hick needs life after death to make sense; Hare may change what believers mean; Mitchell's trust may never be allowed to fail.
The challenge

Does it say anything at all?

Ayer: a sentence no experience could check is meaningless. Flew: a claim nothing could count against says nothing. Is 'God exists' like that?
1Ayer: a sentence means something only if it is true by definition, or could be checked by experience.
2'God exists' is not true by definition, and no one can see or touch God. So Ayer calls it meaningless — and 'God does not exist' too.
3Flew: a real claim must rule something out. If believers let nothing count against 'God loves us', it says nothing.
4Reply: Ayer's own rule cannot be checked by experience either. So it seems to fail its own test.
Strength It points to a real puzzle. If nothing could ever count for or against 'God exists', it is hard to say what the sentence tells us about the world.
Weakness Ayer's rule fails its own test: it is not true by definition, and no experience could check it. It also seems to rule out history, ethics and scientific laws.
04

Six sentences: fact, attitude, or nonsense?

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the shepherd next to the graveside. Both look like facts. Say what is DIFFERENT: is the problem in the words, or in the job? Could one answer fix both?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the invisible lodger. Ayer and Flew say a claim that nothing could check says NOTHING. Do you agree? If you do, what happens to 'God exists'?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Is 'God is good' more like 'the kettle has boiled' or like 'Well done!'? Which fits what believers really MEAN when they pray and worship?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Go through the six sentences. For each say: is the problem in the words, in the job, or can nothing check it? Say the rule you found. Then find the hardest one to place.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by 'non-cognitivism' about religious language?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. The view that religious statements do not express true-or-false beliefs, but attitudes, commitments or ways of seeing the world.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline Ayer's verification principle.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. A statement is meaningful only if true by definition or verifiable in principle by experience
  2. Otherwise, like 'God exists', it is literally meaningless.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain how Hare's concept of a 'blik' responds to Flew.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. Flew: unfalsifiable claims assert nothing
  2. Hare: religious belief is a blik, a way of seeing all evidence — not an assertion, yet still meaningful.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain the difference between cognitivist and non-cognitivist views of religious language.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Cognitivist: beliefs, truth-apt (Aquinas, Hick, Mitchell)
  2. Non-cognitivist: attitudes or ways of life (Hare, Wittgenstein-inspired)
  3. How each meets the empiricist challenge.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is religious language meaningful?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. The puzzle and the two theories
  3. Ayer and Flew's challenge
  4. The replies of Hick, Hare and Mitchell
  5. Judgement.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Every reply in this unit meets the empiricist challenge differently. Predict which reply you expect to be most convincing, and whether it keeps religious language cognitive.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Metaphysics of God booklets runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Metaphysics of God booklets — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Metaphysics of God booklets is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan today's Q05 — thesis, the two theories, Ayer and Flew, the three replies, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying clearly what each view claims about religious sentences. AO2 is asking: does the reply really answer the problem? Never just say 'so it is meaningless' — show why.
09

Watch

Religious language: meaning? — watch for cognitivism against non-cognitivism — Philosophy Vibe, 11:10

▶Religious language: meaning? · 11 min
Watch for: cognitivism against non-cognitivism — Philosophy Vibe, 11:10↗▶Cognitive or non-cognitive? · 14 min
Watch for: the same map in the A-level frame — MsRutherfordRS, 14:44↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say what a cognitivist thinks 'God exists' is.
  2. Say why 'The Lord is my shepherd' is a kind-one problem.
  3. Say why 'She is with God now' is a kind-two problem.

Challenge

Argue: Is 'God exists' more like the shepherd, the graveside or the invisible lodger? Why?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying clearly what each view claims about religious sentences. AO2 is asking: does the reply really answer the problem? Never just say 'so it is meaningless' — show why.