language games

• religious language as a language game is whose theory?

  Wittgenstein's
• in Wittgenstein's approach, what is it inappropriate to treat religious claims as?

  claims about the world
• why is it inappropriate to treat religious claims as claims about the world?

  because religious claims aren't like scientific claims
• the meaning of a statement is not defined by the steps you take to verify or falsify it BUT...?

  by its use (use and context govern meaning)
• what is "Don't think; look!"?

  if you want to understand something, its not enough to understand the meaning of the words, rather, its important to look at how the words are being used
• what is meaning given by?

  use
• what example of "don't think, look!" does Wittgenstein give?

  a builder who calls out "beam" or "more bricks" to his assistant
• explain it:

  the assistant hearing it understands what's wanted and fetches the items. you shout "bricks" because you want some, not to give a description - if the assistant yells back "yes it is" he wouldn't last long in the job
• Wittgenstein said that different words function in different ways, he says language is like a...?

  toolbox
• how does Wittgenstein compare language to a toolbox?

  every tool has its own function and performs a different role
• what did he call this?

  language games
• what did he claim?

  that the uses of language are governed by rules, just as games are governed by rules
• for example...?

  chess would make no sense without the rules by which each piece may be moved
• you cannot criticise other peoples use of language without understanding what?

  the full intention, context and meaning of that use
• what did Wittgenstein the only way that the meaning can be understood is?

  through being apart of the social group which teaches the functions of these words
• what is Wittgenstein's example of this?

  levers in a train carriage
• levers in a train carriage all look the same BUT...?

  the drivers knowledge of the function of each handle allows the train to move
• so, Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of words has to be known from knowing what?

  their function
• if we don't know the purpose of the levers then...?

  we cannot be the driver
• in the same way, if we don't know the function of religious words (because we aren't religious) then...?

  we cannot use them meaningfully
• who is religious language meaningful for?

  those who use it, because they understand the rules for how it is used
• (s) what does Wittgenstein's language games show?

  how language can be meaningful in a non-cognitive way (support from sociological evidence)
• (s) he explains his view with illustrative example so...?

  it is easy to understand
• (s) Aquinas talks about the importance of educating children, could this be...?

  because children have to learn religious language
• (s) language games avoids the confusion that results from what?

  mistaking what language is trying to do (particularly the mistakes of verificationist and falsificationist approaches to religious language)
• (w) if we cannot understand religious language unless we engage with it and use it according to the rules of the language game this...?

  isolates religion from external criticism (leading to confrontation rather than understanding)
• (w) language games is non...?

  verifiable
• (w) for some, what is the most serious criticism of language games?

  religious statements no longer have to be true or false
• (w) so theoretically, what could happen?

  a group of people could construct a consistent set of belief statements based on some of the most blood thirsty religious practices of past civilisations and it could be considered a valid language game
• (w) what is there a divide between?

  what Wittgenstein thinks believers are up to and what most believers think of the matter
• (w) can atheists who were religious in the past...?

  no longer understand the meaning of religious language?