All mystics would agree that in absolute, God cannot be completely comprehended by the mind nor described in human words and concepts. God can only be perceived directly through mystical union with him.
This is not to say that the proper approach to God is emotionalism. Mysticism is not emotionalism. I’ve been to plenty of Christian gatherings where the primary purpose seemed to be to whip people into an emotional frenzy about God – and trust me, mystical union is the farthest thing from this kind of experience. I have no problem at all putting these kind of emotional experiences into words and human concepts – whereas mystical union is simply impossible to completely explain. It must be experienced.
Given, then that all mystics agree that words, concepts and rational arguments about God are to some extent, a “mind game” – they DISAGREE on whether this mind-game is useful. Some clearly think they are NOT…
To such mystics, if you really want to know, become a mystic yourself, otherwise, stop wasting your time talking. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas (the real one that is) contend that while human concepts cannot completely comprehend God, they CAN give us limited truth about God which is useful. Bear in mind, of course, that before his death Thomas had a mystical experience which caused him to refer to all his books as “straw” and ask that they be burnt. 😉
But assuming we decide to play the mind game (and as most here know, I happen to really enjoy the mind-game), I still think we can refute the charges of non-cognitivism. The best book I know on this is “How to Think About God” by Mortimer Adler. Adler spends many chapters patiently explaining all the difficulties involved in thinking about God. These difficulties arise out of the fact that God is such a completely unique object of thought. Because of this, few of the categories applied to other objects of thought can be applied directly to God without qualification.
For example, if we say “God exists” we run into the problems pointed out by the non-cognitive argument. Ordinary objects of thought which “exist” have particular characteristics. God’s existence is like these things in some ways and unlike it in others. Ordinary existence is something of an “analogy” for God’s existence. This is why some of the mystics are quite comfortable with saying that “God exists” and “God does NOT exist” are equally misleading statements.
Adler, by the way, formulates a positive definite description of God in his book as follows (with a nod to Anselm) “That being, than which no greater can be thought of”. Adler has specific reasons for calling this a “definite description” instead of a “definition” – which center in the differences I mentioned above between God and other objects of thought.
A number of theologians look upon God not as “existing” in the way finite objects exist, but of being “existence itself” or as Thomas Aquinas put it “the essence of essences”. In spite of the Objectivists contention that “Existence exists” I’ve always thought this was trying to make verbs into nouns. Existence doesn’t “exist” any more than “redness” is literally red. Which is entirely different, of course, from saying existence is a fantasy or a fiction.