1. Language Games Offside!

2. Language Game Theory – Ludwig Wittgenstein An Austrian general said to someone: 'I shall think of you after my death, if that should be possible'. We can imagine one group who would find this ludicrous, another who wouldn't.... Suppose that someone believed in the Last Judgement, and I don't, does this mean that I believe the opposite of him, just that there won't be such a thing? I would say: "not at all, or not always". Suppose I say that the body will rot, and another says "No. Particles will rejoin in a thousand years, and there will be a Resurrection of you". If someone said: "Wittgenstein, do you believe in this?" I'd say: "No." "Do you contradict the man?" I'd say: "No".... Suppose someone were a believer and said: "I believe in a Last Judgement," and I said; "Well, I'm not so sure. Possibly". You would say that there is an enormous gulf between us. If he said "There is a German aeroplane overhead", and I said " Possibly I'm not so sure" you'd say we were fairly near. It isn't a question of my being near him, but on an entirely different plane, which you can express by saying: "You mean something altogether different, Wittgenstein". The difference might not show up at all in any explanation of meaning…

3. Wittgenstein’s Language Game Approach A functional and postmodern approach to language Language statements are not ‘true or false’ but bear meaning to the speaker/person expressing themselves. In each ‘form of life’ language therefore is part of a ‘game’ – people part of each game communicate with each other. Each game has a ‘criteria of coherence’, which is only understood in relevance to that game. Religious Language is meaningful when used in the context of the correct ‘game’, hence believers understand each other. If one does not understand it, it is deemed a ‘category mistake’ e.g. a scientist physically looking for a ‘soul’.

4. Strengths: 1. A strength is that it gives believers a way to express the meaningfulness of religious language 2. At the same time explaining why atheists or people not in the language game do not understand the meaning. 3. It does not mean what is said is meaningless just that you do not know the rules of the game.

5. Weaknesses: 1. It removes the link between claims made with language and empirical evidence 2. Many believers speak of their faith as a true proposition which can be empirically verified. 3. Makes religion a select group which often goes against the Churches teachings

6. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Language Game approach Recognises the range of interpretations (non – cognitive) Boundaries for use of language Distinguishes it from other types One can be ‘initiated’ into the ‘game’ e.g. believers Defended against criticism by ‘category mistakes’ Each ‘criteria of coherence’ may be nonsense! Can claims be empirically tested? People outside the game are alienated Rules cannot be adapted Challenges are too easily rejected StrengthsWeaknesses

7. Language Game Questions In what way might ‘Language Games’ benefit the Religious Believer? Do you think ‘Language Games’ enable Religious Language to be more meaningful? Compare ‘Language Games to one of the other forms of language which we have encountered – which is the most problematic?