Wigenstein’s Language Games Flashcards
(8 cards)
Who was Ludwig Wittgenstein?
A 20th century Austrian thinker
What were Wittgenstein’s language games ?
-Wittgenstein’s non cognitive Language Games theory suggests that the meaning of religious language comes not from its ability to be verified or falsified, but from how it is used within a specific context
-He argued that different areas of life, such as science, religion, or ethics, each follow their own “language games,” with their own internal rules and purposes. In religion, statements like Religious language, like “God exists” or “salvation,” gains its meaning within the life and practices of a faith community
What was Wittgenstein’s example of the builder?
-As Wittgenstein famously said, “the meaning of language is its use”
-He explained this through the example of a builder shouting “brick!”—the word is not a factual statement or description, but a request understood only within the rules of that working activity
-Similarly, religious statements are not attempts to describe the world scientifically but are meaningful within the religious ‘language-game
How does Wittgenstein’s language games idea directly challenge the VP?
-It directly challenges Ayer’s Verification Principle, which claimed only empirical or analytic statements are meaningful. -Wittgenstein rejected this, believing the rules of meaning are set by participants in the activity itself. For instance, “God is love” is not a factual description, but, as D.Z. Phillips explained, a way of showing how the word “God” is used within the religion
What is a strength of the language games?
-Language Games theory also shows how religious language is meaningful for believers, even if outsiders do not understand or accept it
-Peter Donovan explains that asking “Was Jesus the Messiah?” can only be understood by those inside the religious language-game
What was Wittgenstein’s train example?
Similarly (to Peter), Wittgenstein compares being in a religion to being in the cabin of a train: you can see the buttons and levers, but until you’ve tried using them, you won’t know what they truly mean.
-This defends religious language from Logical Positivist critiques by showing that outsiders misinterpret its purpose
-For believers, statements like “God exists” are not scientific claims, but expressions of faith that shape their worldview
-Religious terms carry meaning because of their links to worship, moral decisions and spiritual practices
-As Wittgenstein put it, once someone “enters the game,” they learn the rules—and the meaning—through use. This makes religious language deeply meaningful within its own form of life, regardless of external verification
Why is it a problem that the language games idea concept limits interfaith dialogue?
-One major issue with Wittgenstein’s theory is that it restricts meaningful religious language to those within a specific ‘form of life’
-As he argued, “If a lion could speak, we could not understand him”, showing how meaning depends entirely on context and shared practices
-This becomes a problem for interfaith or believer–non-believer dialogue
-If religious language only has meaning for those who participate in the religious ‘game’, it becomes almost impossible for outsiders to engage with or critique it rationally. Concepts like “sin” or “grace” become insulated from outside understanding, preventing fruitful discussion across worldviews
-This is especially problematic for Christianity, where evangelism—the act of spreading the gospel to non-believers—is a core commandment (Matthew 28:19: “Go and make disciples of all nations”)»If outsiders cannot understand the language of faith, the very purpose of evangelism becomes limited or even impossible.
Why is it a problem that the concept of language games Religius realism?
-Wittgenstein’s model can also be accused of undermining religious realism, the belief that religious claims correspond to objective truths about reality
-Many believers genuinely mean “God exists” as a factual statement, not just as a phrase used within a specific context
-As philosopher D.Z. Phillips interpreted Wittgenstein, religious statements “do not describe states of affairs” but instead show how language is used within religion
-Critics argue this reduces faith claims to internal, community-based practices, stripping them of any claim to universal truth.
