Can anyone quickly answer me:
Is this correct?
Hare accepted Flews’ idea that Falsification could be used to determine the meaningfulness of statements. However, he argued that Falsification did not apply to religious statements. Hare did not consider religious statements to be factual assertions that could be either true or false (cognitive). He argued that although nothing can count against religious statements (they are not falsifiable) this did not mean that they had to be meaningless. Religious language is non-cognitive, it cannot make factual claims.
However, Hare still believed Religious language has meaning. They do not convey knowledge about the world, but their meaning arises from the way they are used and impact on people’s lives.