Wittgenstein on religious language Michael Lacewing [email protected] Cognitivism v. non-cognitivism • What are we doing when we are talking about God? • Cognitivism: religious claims, e.g. ‘God exists’ – Aim to describe how the world is – Can be true or false – Express beliefs that the claim is true. • Non-cognitivism: religious claims – Do not aim to describe the world – Cannot be true or false – Express attitudes towards the world. An argument for noncognitivism • People don’t normally acquire religious beliefs by argument or testing evidence. • When someone converts to a religion, what changes isn’t so much intellectual beliefs, but their will, values, way of living. • Therefore, ‘God exists’ doesn’t state a factual belief, but expresses a non-cognitive attitude. • But how does language have meaning when it doesn’t state truths? Wittgenstein on meaning • To understand language, we must understand how it is used. • Compare uses of language to ‘games’ - rules that allow or disallow certain moves/meanings. • Surface grammar v. depth grammar – ‘The bus passes the bus stop’ v. ‘The peace of the Lord passes all understanding’ – Asking your boss for a raise v. asking God for prosperity. • Language is part of life, a ‘form’ of life. Wittgenstein on religious belief • So religious language takes its meaning from religious life. • Its surface grammar looks empirical, but its depth grammar is very different – God is not a ‘thing’ like any other – ‘a religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although it’s a belief, it’s really a way of living, or a way of assessing life. It’s passionately seizing hold of this interpretation.’ Implications • The ‘Last Judgment’ is not a future event. • Religious language expresses an emotional attitude and understanding of life and a commitment to living life according to that understanding. Objection • Religious belief cannot be criticized by facts and ‘evidence’ – It cannot be true or false, probable or improbable – But what about the argument from design or problem of evil – Religious belief is not cut off from reason. • Reply: religious belief still needs to ‘make sense’ of human experience – But what does this mean, given that it doesn’t say anything cognitive? Objection • Wittgenstein’s interpretation contradicts what most religious believers believe! – Believers use religious language to state truths – They have disagreed and argued over truths that don’t have any obvious practical implications. • Religious language is both factual and expressive.
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
