Ludwig Wittgenstein's "defense" of religion

[lpetrich]

Wittgenstein’s ‘defense’ of religion by Mano Singham, linking to Atheists vs religious belief, with Wittgenstein on the stand | Aeon Essays, by Stephen Law

In Lectures, Wittgenstein said that, as a non-believer, he couldn’t contradict what the religious person believes:

If you ask me whether or not I believe in a Judgment Day, in the sense in which religious people have belief in it, I wouldn’t say: ‘No. I don’t believe there will be such a thing.’ It would seem to me utterly crazy to say this.

And then I give the explanation: ‘I don’t believe in …’, but then the religious person never believes what I describe.

I can’t say. I can’t contradict that person.

Indeed, Wittgenstein is widely interpreted as supposing that, not only can non-believers not contradict what the religious believe, they can’t refute those beliefs either. But why not?

Seems to me a muddled mess.

SL then discusses non-cognitivism, the theory that religious claims are not really claims. It includes expressivism, that religious claims are to express emotions or attitudes. That has plenty of problems, and another interpretation is

So, on this view, while (contrary to non-cognitivism) claims are made by religious folk who say God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, there are often further dimensions of meaning or significance that are lost on the atheist.

... What the philosophical critic of religious belief attempts, he suggests, is the ‘fruit-juicer method’: an attempt to extract from religious belief the clear liquid of certain claims that can be examined in isolation, discarding the pulpy mush of context.

That has problems of its own.

But then perhaps what the religious mean when they say God exists is similarly wholly metaphorical, with the result that the atheist critic entirely misunderstands what the religious person is committed to? Call this the strong juicer view.

Then,

A third view attributed to Wittgenstein regarding religious language is what I dub the atheist minus view. On this, the religious person is committed, not to more than the atheist supposes, but to less.

... Theologians often stress that God is not a ‘thing’: God is not some sort of extra item in addition to the Universe and its contents.

I've never been able to understand that. "God" as something other than a discrete being would mean that "God" is another name for something else, as with pantheism.

 

[Lion IRC]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

Define "higher beings". Perhaps somewhere in the universe there are aliens who are longer lived and more intelligent than humans?Possible. Not metaphysically impossible. Disemboddied being that are intelligent and exist without the need of matter? I have no belief in such beings. I don't see any evidence that is possible..

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Bible Fairy told me there are a ton o' gods (Genesis 3:22 et alia).

 

[Rhea]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

You mean, “could the reactions and conditions that caused a thing, happen more than once?” What reason is there against that? If it happened once, what would stop it from happening twice?

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip ....

A third view attributed to Wittgenstein regarding religious language is what I dub the atheist minus view. On this, the religious person is committed, not to more than the atheist supposes, but to less.

... Theologians often stress that God is not a ‘thing’: God is not some sort of extra item in addition to the Universe and its contents.

I've never been able to understand that. "God" as something other than a discrete being would mean that "God" is another name for something else, as with pantheism.

This kinda reminds me of a longtime friend of mine.

We were fishing. Naturally there are long pauses in conversation during such an activity. During one of these pauses he asked me if I believed in god. In response, I asked what he meant by the word god. There was a blank look on his face for some time then his response was a simple, "Oh". We returned our attention to fishing and, during the intermittent conversations, we returned to bitching about government - which we also have major disagreements over. Neither of us has brought up the subject of god or religion since. - And his question was the only time either of us had ever brought up the subject.

 

[Lion IRC]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

Define "higher beings"..

The (undesirable) being atheists say doesn't exist....is logically impossible, can't be seen in a telescope etc etc The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The (undesirable) being atheists say doesn't exist....is logically impossible, can't be seen in a telescope etc etc The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise.

No, we describe it as supernatural because there's no reason to assume that anyone can do it, not just humans.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not even Clark Kent?

 

[Copernicus]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

Define "higher beings"..

The (undesirable) being atheists say doesn't exist....is logically impossible, can't be seen in a telescope etc etc The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise.

The word "supernatural" has a fairly clear meaning. Nature refers to a physical plane of existence. Gods and other immaterial spirits are able to control the behavior of physical reality through the use of a nonphysical force. In the case of deities, people tend to assume that they can simply will changes in reality by the same means that human beings will their bodies to move. Mind (or spirit) over matter. Atheists do not necessarily think of gods as undesirable, only nonexistent. Like other mythical, magical, supernatural beings that people have been dreaming up since the beginnings of recorded history.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

Define "higher beings"..

The (undesirable) being atheists say doesn't exist....is logically impossible, can't be seen in a telescope etc etc The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise.

The problem with the Christian God is that the Bible makes claims about the attributes of God. God is perfectly, morally good. God is just, merciful, compassionate and fair. But the supposedly trustworthy revelations of the Bible, revealed or inspired by God himself tells us god is none of these things. A God who hardens hearts, a God who creates some elect and some not elect, a god who arbitrarily hates some and not others. The deeper theology of Paul et al.

Then we have the problem of a god who is supposedly good, merciful, just and compassionate commanding murders, massacres and genocide.

Then we have the problems of the supposed attributes of God and reality. Is God inside or outside of time? Omniscience and free will. The problem of evil. And more. God as a concept is so self defeating and incoherent we can safely and reliably demonstrate god is not possible, as described. Not by Christianity, not by Islam.

And more. Then some theologians abandon a failed God hypothesis and make up new ones. God is being itself, the "ground of our being". Process theology. And other nonsense. God in the end is at best, special pleading and sophistry.

 

[Lion IRC]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say you don't think Gods actions are good?
Anyway, you asked me to define Higher Being - not find a description of someone everybody likes.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say you don't think Gods actions are good?
Anyway, you asked me to define Higher Being - not find a description of someone everybody likes.

Yes, it would be easier. But not adequate. I like good, hard evidence for claims to be considered demonstrated. Examining the claims of the Bible (or Quran etc) that God is perfectly good, merciful, just, fair and compassionate, proclaimed as trustworthy revelations don't withstand scrutiny.

 

[skepticalbip]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say you don't think Gods actions are good?

That would be quite misleading. A better statement would be that he doesn't like the actions that theists have attributed to what they imagine as a god.

 

[Rhea]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say you don't think Gods actions are good?
Anyway, you asked me to define Higher Being - not find a description of someone everybody likes.

No. That wouldd be a different topic.
He’s saying the god described CANNOT EXIST because the desciptions contradict themselves.
He’s saying it can be a god he hates, as long as it is not also described as a god who only does likeable things.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say you don't think Gods actions are good?
Anyway, you asked me to define Higher Being - not find a description of someone everybody likes.

No. That wouldd be a different topic.
He’s saying the god described CANNOT EXIST because the desciptions contradict themselves.
He’s saying it can be a god he hates, as long as it is not also described as a god who only does likeable things.

To be accurate, I do not hate God. No more than I hate Captain Hook or Darth Vader. What I do hate is the swarm of fundamentalist evangelicals who believe in this nonsense inflicting their nonsense on me and the good citizens of Texas, The United States and the world at large. Anti-intellectualism run rampant. Creationism in our schools, the war against clime science, women's health, birth control and more. Their support for incompetent far right politics and politicians and militant ignorance.

 

[Copernicus]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say you don't think Gods actions are good?
Anyway, you asked me to define Higher Being - not find a description of someone everybody likes.

It should be noted that you never did give a definition of what you thought a "Higher Being" was, even though it was you who first mentioned that expression in this thread. Instead, you deflected the question by making it all about what atheists don't believe in. The word "higher" suggests some kind of scale with "high" and "low" positions, but it doesn't tell us what kind of scale you had in mind. Were you thinking of something like the scale of human social hierarchy, where nobles rank higher than commoners and monarchs higher than other nobles? There is certainly a lot of terminology in religious scripture that depicts God as a kind of divine monarch. People typically defer to "higher beings" on that scale. They kneel before monarchs, and everybody kneels before God. Right? People are supposed to obey God, but atheists think they have the right to be disobedient, right?

 

[Lion IRC]

I said..."The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise."
I have many times pointed to the Nicene Creed as a statement of theological distinctives re. God.
And it's not "deflecting" when I say I'm ok with using the atheist's definition of God(s)
Please don't pretend atheists have no idea what it is they don't believe exists.

Thee - "I'm a non-stamp collector"
Me - "What's a stamp"?
Thee - "I don't know, you tell me"

Besides, it's not like atheists are gonna sit back and say OK Lion IRC we accept your definition of God. My time on this forum has been frequently punctuated by episodes of atheists 'splaining to me how omnipotence/omniscience works and how atheists are better educated about God(s) and religion than everyone else.

So pardon my suspicion when those same people invite me to "define Higher Being"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I said..."The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise."
I have many times pointed to the Nicene Creed as a statement of theological distinctives re. God.
And it's not "deflecting" when I say I'm ok with using the atheist's definition of God(s)
Please don't pretend atheists have no idea what it is they don't believe exists.

Thee - "I'm a non-stamp collector"
Me - "What's a stamp"?
Thee - "I don't know, you tell me"

Besides, it's not like atheists are gonna sit back and say OK Lion IRC we accept your definition of God. My time on this forum has been frequently punctuated by episodes of atheists 'splaining to me how omnipotence/omniscience works and how atheists are better educated about God(s) and religion than everyone else.

So pardon my suspicion when those same people invite me to "define Higher Being"

The folks I know who use "higher being" use it as a fallback position because they have concluded that the gods they've heard about are incredibly silly. So a higher being is something like a god but not a god. It's actually a lesser being, not a higher being.

That's what I take from discussions with people who use the phrase, but it doesn't tell me what they're talking about.

 

[abaddon]

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

Are you a believer insofar as there are Fat Dangles anywhere?

Do not pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, because how could you not believe them except by knowing what they are?

I said..."The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise."

It's Christian theists who describe God as supernatural for that reason. He's the creator of the created (nature), remember?

... it's not "deflecting" when I say I'm ok with using the atheist's definition of God(s).

Atheists have ideas about what Christian theists in general mean by "God", but that's from theist's descriptions or definitions -- a variety of them. So there is no atheist definition. The lack of belief or disbelief doesn't need a specified object.

If you don't understand that, then ask for further explanation and it'll be clarified. But don't pretend it's the atheists doing the pretending -- if you cannot think straight enough to answer questions, don't blame that on other people. Answering to your best ability is ok. There's no shame in it when reason shows up problems and you need to rethink things.

Please don't pretend atheists have no idea what it is they don't believe exists.

If someone asks for your definition, it's to be clear on your particular take on things. If your take on things is hazy, then it's a chance to clarify it.

Thee - "I'm a non-stamp collector"
Me - "What's a stamp"?
Thee - "I don't know, you tell me"

Lion IRC: Stamp exists.
Atheists: Which stamp? Can you be more specific?
Lion IRC: No, I'm going to obfuscate and then pretend it's you atheists who do it.

Besides, it's not like atheists are gonna sit back and say OK Lion IRC we accept your definition of God.

If you give a definition, it'll be tested whether it's a coherent idea or not. That's how reasoning about things goes. If you don't want to go there, is it because you can't make it seem coherent and need to refer people to the Nicene Creed so theologians can do the reasoning for you?

Weren't you once interested in showing your faith is reasoned (by you)? When and why did you give up on that, and turn to obfuscation instead?

Lion IRC: <assertions about God and religion>
Atheists: Can you give us some better detail?
Lion IRC: I'm not going to, because it's easier on my brain if you make guesses so that I can complain about misrepresentations and tricks!

My time on this forum has been frequently punctuated by episodes of atheists 'splaining to me how omnipotence/omniscience works and how atheists are better educated about God(s) and religion than everyone else.

That's your take on what happens when you show incomprehension of language and people (in their role as rational humans) try to remind you what words mean.

So pardon my suspicion when those same people invite me to "define Higher Being"

Then on your behalf, "Higher Being" is hereby defined as "the Most Perfectly Non-Existent Gassy Stinker on the Most Perfectly Non-Existent Golden 'Throne'".

If you had something else in mind, you should say.