Theory of language games emerged from Wittgenstein‘s disillusion with the Logical Positivists extreme stance on the validity of anything which could not be verified or falsified as an analytic or synthetic statement.
He categorised religious language as one of many areas of human life which has not only its own vocabulary but its own rules too and was therefore not subject to judgement by the usual rules of empirical criticism.
This theory was to protect religious language from accusations of meaningless since the reality it was used to describe was not the concrete reality of the world of the phenomenon.
Critics of religious language would have to become fully initiated into the use of this type of language in order to understand it in its context. Ultimately the critic would have to become a member of the community which used that language.
Any attempt to impose scientific or even logical criteria upon the religious life represented a misunderstanding of the ‘game’!
Wittgenstein further highlighted the fact that the religious language game is more complex than most. The empirical world view and this one are so far removed from each other that dialogue cannot take place unless there is agreement not to criticise from the wrong perspective. His own example from WWII was one soldier saying to another, ‘I believe there is a German aeroplane overhead.’ The other replies, ‘possibly.’ But in a different scenario, the first says, I believe there is a Last Judgment’ to which the second replies the same as before, ‘possibly.’ It is quite obvious that the first man’s belief affects his world view and impacts on his whole life rather more than the possibility of the aeroplane overhead.
One of this theory’s successes is the possibility for communication it opens up between different disciplines.
In science particularly, scientist and theist can have a discussion recognising that they are not talking in contradictions but expressing their experiences by different rules. Both might refer to the beauty of a sunset, the theist from the point of view of God’s creation, the scientist from physical and natural laws but they are both referring to the same phenomenon though using their own ‘rules’ or vocabulary.
Language games therefore enable different forms of life to exist in parallel without necessary contradiction.
A criticism could be that it allows for nothing better than a compromise. Though religious language uses non-cognitive forms such as myth and symbol not all religious language is.
The assertion ‘God exists,’ refers to more than just the symbolic realm the believer is using it to express a claim about reality. God may be transcendent but he can also be experienced in the real world. It becomes a universal truth.
Although language games attempt to make all forms of life equally valid it does gloss over the difficult relationship between language and reality rather than opening up the way for a deeper understanding of the functions of religious language.
Religious language is not cognitive language it does not appeal to reason but to the emotions and is therefore affective.
Myth and symbol are part of the complex structure and character of religious language and are used when factual statements would be inappropriate.
Non-cognitive statements about religion are neither true nor false – they do not make factual assertions – (they cannot be verified or falsified) but have a meaningful function in the right context.
Myth and symbol are pictorial forms of language which communicate religious truths about the nature of God, his relationship with his creation or the purpose God has for humanity which cannot be communicated any other way.
Rudolph Bultmann said the only way to get at the meaning of religious stories was to strip away the myth.
He believed that there was a kerygma – an abiding truth within the gospel message but miraculous details had no place in it.
But is myth dispensable?
They are surely meant to aid not hinder our understanding of the message?
Religious language needs to be appreciated as non-cognitive in order to understand the essential truth underlying the stories without imposing a literal understanding of them.
Symbols likewise convey more than just surface meaning. They open up deeper levels of reality. The sacrament of eucharist for example conveys a deeper spiritual meaning below the outward physical reality.
Symbols are flexible. The cross for example has many meanings. Likewise referring to Jesus as the Lamb of God conveys gentleness, humility, sacrifice and atonement.
Symbolic language reveals the most important elements of belief.
However symbols can become over used and empty rituals, like baptism.
They can be come the very focus of religion themselves, wherein for example the very acts of eucharist or baptism become essential to salvation.
Both myth and symbol are essential to non-cognitive religious discourse but can become obscured by layers of tradition and culture. Each generation needs to rediscover their real meaning for themselves.
