4C - ''Whether non-cognitive interpretations are valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language''

A - Non cognitive/analogical interpretations are valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language because analogies can persuade non-religious believers

Analogies can persuade non religious believers by linking something they do not understand to their own personal experience.
The whole concept of religious language being meaningless comes from it not being in the realm of our personal experience.

But, if we for example, use Aquinas’ analogy of proportion we can show that God is good in proportion to what it means for God to be good.
The same way it is done for plants, animals and humans.
Evidently showing a valid response to the challenges to the meaning of religious language as meaningfulness can be built by linking something non believers do all the time, to something not as understood to create a common ground.

C - However, non cognitive/analogical interpretations aren’t valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language because the individual may not have experience of the analogy

The individual may not have experience of the analogy, therefore, the analogy falls apart.

For example, St Teresa’s analogy to describe prayer, how can a non religious believer relate to this?
Clearly doesn’t show a valid response to the challenges to the meaning of religious language as analogies may not always be able to persuade non-religious believers if it is still outside of their realm of experience and understanding.

C - However, non/cognitive analogical interpretations can still be valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language because analogies may not require direct experience to convey meaning

People understand many concepts through analogies despite never experiencing them personally.

For example, someone can understand analogies about parenthood, grief without having been a parent or put through the same grievance.
Shows how Aquinas analogies rely on shared human reasoning rather than identical personal experiences.
Evidently still shows a valid response to challenges to the meaning of religious language as non believers can still understand meaning even if there is a lack of direct experience, it still develops a meaningful, partial insight into God.

D - Non/cognitive analogical interpretations aren’t valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language

Because the ideas of human emotions and practices are still very different to expressing ideas about the divine which can further impair understanding.

A - Non/cognitive analogical interpretations aren’t valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language due to logical positivism

Analogies cannot be verified or falsified.
While they may help explaining religious concepts, they don’t provide empirical evidence that religious claims are true.

For example, saying ‘‘God is good’’ through Aquinas’ analogy of attribution or proportion may help people understand the concept of divine goodness.
However, according to AJ Ayer the claim still cannot be verified through sensory experience, which makes it meaningless.
Evidently this shows how non cognitive/analogical statements aren’t a valid response to the challenge as they fail to answer the core challenge that religious language lacks cognitive meaning.

C - However, non cognitive/analogical interpretations can still be valid responses because truth and meaning are two different things

Truth and meaning are two different things.
Just because analogies can’t be verified or falsified doesn’t mean they can’t still be meaningful.

Ramsey would argue that phrases such as God as a ‘Shepherd’ use familiar language from ordinary experience to point towards a deeper mystery.
When someone experiences a disclosure the ‘‘penny drops’’ and they gain a new understanding, even though no empirical proof has been provided.
Evidently shows how non/cognitive analogical statements are valid responses as even if truth cannot be determined, meaning in the form of understanding is achieved.

D - Non-cognitive/analogical interpretations can be valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language

Because meaning can be subjective from person to person, and religious language can be meaningful through disclosure and insight.
Making a lack of empirical evidence not necessarily an adequate challenge to its meaning.

A - Non-cognitive/analogical interpretations aren’t valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language because Aquinas and Ramsey assume that God exists

Both Aquinas and Ramsey assume that God exists.
But God cannot be experienced, so analogies may not be convincing.

How can Aquinas and Ramsey talk about God analogically if neither of them provide evidence that God actually exists.
A non believer may then reject the analogy altogether, arguing that the object being described isn’t known at all.
Evidently, this shows how non-cognitive/analogical responses aren’t valid as their effectiveness is limited if the thing being described may not even exist.

C - However, non-cognitive/analogical interpretations may still be valid responses as they are always convincing to religious believers.

However, they are always convincing to religious believers.
Aquinas and Ramsey’s main focus was with explaining how believers can meaningfully speak about God.

For example, Aquinas allows believers to speak of God’s attributes while recognising His transcendence.
And Ramsey’s disclosure models and qualifiers help believers gain a deeper understanding of their religious experiences.
Clearly, for those who already accept the existence of God, these approaches allow religious language to appear meaningful.
Which evidently shows non cognitive/analogical responses as valid as they achieve heir intended purpose within religious communities.

D - Non-cognitive/analogical interpretations aren’t valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language

Because if they can’t convince non-believers it isn’t an adequate way of conveying meaning as it doesn’t make sense for the already convinced to be convinced of meaning.