The apophatics (& poets) have it right — whenever we [try to] eff the ineffable we talk nonsense (e.g. babytalk, glossalalia, ...).If God is a transcendental being, existing outside of space and time, how do we make sense of religious language when it talks about the actions/attributes of God. — Wittgenstein
When l talk about God, l feel like a blind man talking about something our there in the world. Except that it transcends every sense and conception familiar to me in this world. — Wittgenstein
If God is a transcendental being, existing outside of space and time, how do we make sense of religious language when it talks about the actions/attributes of God. For example, "God created the universe( along with time) " is not a usual statement. The word "create" in its usual/universal use implies a time before creation and a time after creation. — Wittgenstein
The essence of God is beyond our mind, we cannot comprehend it. The attributes we give to God are unlike our attributes. Our understanding of personal attributes rests on the idea of having a conscious/mind etc but we are not capable of understanding what consciousness means with respect to God. It isn't like ours. As a whole, we don't really understand what we mean by God. — Wittgenstein
We should not take a representational account of religious language but try to see its appropriate use in a religious life in form of metaphor, paradox, expectation, commands etc. — Wittgenstein
But even though the word "create" is incoherent in that context, bringing into play the fact that he/she exists outside of time makes sense of it; it seems to me that god's atemporal actions can be understood as a function of his/her attributes, namely being outside time and space - in this example. Whether or not it is possible for things to exist outside time and space is open ended I think; I am agnostic with respect to such a possibility.
I think that people assign plenty of human attributes to god, such as a loving nature. And yes, omnibenevolence, for example, is unlike anything we possess, but it can still be understood and defined.
If you rob religious language of its explicit, representational meanings religion is no longer religion in the commonly understood sense; it becomes less about a set of norms established by a divine creator and more about preserving a collection of backwards values by packing them into a loosely defined, metaphorical structuration.
That doesn't really resolve the issue at hand. We don't understand such functions or attributes of God anymore than the word "create" in "God created the world". — Wittgenstein
I think it would be a misunderstanding to confuse our kind of love with God's love. — Wittgenstein
I think you misunderstood what l meant by representational view. Wittgenstein thinks we should not see religious language as a reflection of reality (the world out there ) and for him it is perfectly okay to view religion as a collection of commands,hope, ethical viewpoints etc. You can strip away the metaphysics around it. I obviously don't agree with Wittgenstein. Religious language is actually a representation of reality ( according to religious people ). — Wittgenstein
I am not interested in the physical possibility but our understanding of such a possibility ( how we use religious language to describe it) . — Wittgenstein
I think it would be a misunderstanding to confuse our kind of love with God's love. — Wittgenstein
If you rob religious language of its explicit, representational meanings religion is no longer religion in the commonly understood sense; it becomes less about a set of norms established by a divine creator and more about preserving a collection of backwards values by packing them into a loosely defined, metaphorical structuration.
I think you misunderstood what l meant by representational view. Wittgenstein thinks we should not see religious language as a reflection of reality (the world out there ) and for him it is perfectly okay to view religion as a collection of commands,hope, ethical viewpoints etc. You can strip away the metaphysics around it. I obviously don't agree with Wittgenstein. Religious language is actually a representation of reality ( according to religious people ). — Wittgenstein
I'm saying that if you strip the language of its representativeness, its claim on reality, then you also deny revelation's explicitness; the commands, ethical viewpoints, etc. have no special weight; they are neither dependent upon a creator or commanded by a creator. Normatively it just isn't the same. This comes into conflict with the overwhelming majority of people's ideas of religion, something you seem to agree with.
l think Wittgenstein was trying to make a more subtle point. It has got to do with psychology. The normative claims won't have the same force to them if you remove the existence of God from religious text but the faith in God according to Wittgenstein primarily serves as source of hope/salvation/peace/courage, it isn't a representation of reality but only used as such for its effectiveness. — Wittgenstein
I don't agree with Wittgenstein still. — Wittgenstein
Otherwise, you would need to explain how people seem to understand a paradoxical langauge. — Wittgenstein
There is nothing outside of space and time, because we cannot show it to be actual or necessary. — Philosophim
Did Wittgenstein actually talk about religion? Or are you just applying what he had to say? Did some research and you seem to just be applying Wittgenstein's theories about patterns of intentions.
Here is the thing about language. We can invent whatever terms and ideas we want. But if we are going to claim these terms represent reality, we must show their actual or necessary existence in reality. — Philosophim
The primary purpose is moral/existential assurance from a divine being. You can sort of infer the intention/tacit agreement among religious people as a necessary condition. — Wittgenstein
Yeah, I agree to a certain extent. I still think religion has outlived its usefulness, and that viewing it as a collection of stories/metaphors/sources of existential assurance is the minority view, but still better than telling young children that they are bound for hell.
The final stage is essential and the most difficult, it is the religious stage. Here you take a leap of faith, you belief in something that you can't possibly justify. It's for that reason alone called belief. You discover your meaning in life by resigning to the paradox of faith. — Wittgenstein
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.