Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Nature of Religious Language Essay -- Languag

Ludwig Wittgenstein once believed that language's function was to name objects and the meaning of language was found in the objects for which it stands. He later rejected this and centred on how language works and is used, believing that problems of religious language come from misunderstanding its usage. Wittgenstein was no longer concerned with the truth or falsity of language but the way it is used and the functions that it performs, as he said 'Don't ask for the meaning ask for the use.' Wittgenstein recognised that language is equivocal as words have many different meanings, such as the word 'pen' whose meaning changes in different contexts. He saw language as a game, which like all games had its own set of rules. Different contexts or 'forms of life' are like different language games with their own self contained rules. Those not involved in a particular language game effectively become 'non-players' and so the language holds no meaning for them, however, this does not give the non-believer the right to dismiss religious language as meaningless. Wittgenstein used the example of 'soul' to illustrate the problems of trying to use words in the wrong language 'game'. He felt that the problems stemming from the word 'soul' are caused because people try to see it as a physical object. Such problems would disappear if people realised that the 'physical object game' didn't apply in this case. It was argued that language is a social product, therefore individuals could not have their own private language as one could not be certain that language was being used correctly. Wittgenstein therefore rejected Descartes ... ... Religious believers are also involved in other language games because they are involved in other aspects of life. This means that religious language is not totally isolated and there will be some common ground with other 'language games'. This may suggest that the non-believer may be able to understand religious language and decide if it holds any meaning for them. It is also argued that if anything, non-believers may be able to understand religious language better than a believer, as they can be more objective about it. It seems that Wittgenstein was mistaken as seeing religious language only being intelligible in the context of religious belief. Many religious statements entail a truth which is not dependent upon context, but statements such as 'Jesus died to bring salvation' are though of as true for everyone.