Iycee Charles de Gaulle Summary The interpreted that Wittgenstein is implying that

The interpreted that Wittgenstein is implying that

The Last Judgement example that Wittgenstein gives shows a
reasonable conclusion that when a person says ‘I believe in the Last Judgement’
and the person who says that he doesn’t are contradicting each other. But we shouldn’t
necessarily consider the religious belief contradiction to be the same as a
scientific contradiction, for there are problems when religious belief would
appear to contradict with a scientific belief. It is clear that both of these
statements are contraries and both cannot be true. The religious and
non-religious person are said to be on “entirely different planes”, it could be
interpreted that Wittgenstein is implying that religious and nonreligious language
is incommensurable as the same terms may have different meaning in religious
and nonreligious discourse and so are not contradicting each other since they
are used in different senses. But it could have been interpreted that the
difference of meaning is shown through the way that different people use the
language but not the verbal explanation of the meaning. But if we are to agree
that a religious believer and non-believer talk past each other when concerned
with religious matters, could this arguably not be for different religious
believers? For why would incommensurability only exist between the religious
and non-religious and if this is true then it would be difficult to know where
to stop, especially when we would have no idea what evidence would be relevant
to its evaluation.

A consequence of Wittgenstein’s argument is that we can’t us
evidence to criticise or support religious beliefs and no language game can be
criticised by a rationality that is not internal to the particular game. But this
doesn’t mean that there are no grounds on whether or not to accept religious
belief as it is a way of guiding one’s life. For Wittgenstein could be wrong
that religious language is only used in an expressive sense, for when a
religious believer states ‘God exists’, they believe that they are saying
something factual and so why not also empirical? A main concern with Wittgenstein’s
argument is that if religious belief is a type of language game then it would
seem that the criteria is internal to the game so  we can only understand it if you’re an insider
of the game. This makes religious practices ‘self-contained’ and internal which
seems implausible as there are obvious connections between religious language and
ordinary language. We must firstly have an understanding of ordinary language
to then be able to understand religious language.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now