Discuss Wittgenstein's view about the non-cognitive nature of religious language.

The Rejection of Traditional Approaches

Wittgenstein rejected the traditional philosophical approach to religious language that sought to determine its truth or falsity. He criticized both the attempts to reduce religious statements to verifiable propositions (as in logical positivism) and the attempts to interpret them as expressing subjective feelings or emotions. He argued that these approaches fundamentally misunderstood the nature of language and its role in human life.

Language-Games and Forms of Life

Central to Wittgenstein’s later philosophy is the concept of ‘language-games’. He argued that language doesn’t function as a mirror reflecting reality, but rather as a tool used in various activities, each with its own rules and conventions. These activities – asking questions, giving orders, describing objects, telling stories, praying – constitute ‘language-games’. The meaning of a word or statement is determined by its role within a particular language-game.

Furthermore, language-games are embedded within ‘forms of life’ – the shared practices, customs, and beliefs of a community. Understanding a language-game requires understanding the form of life in which it is played. Religious language, according to Wittgenstein, is a language-game played within the form of life of a religious community.

Religious Language as Non-Cognitive

Wittgenstein argued that religious language is non-cognitive because it doesn’t aim to state facts about the world. Instead, it performs a different function – expressing faith, awe, worship, or moral commitment. Consider the statement “God is love.” Wittgenstein wouldn’t ask whether this statement is true or false in a factual sense. Rather, he would ask what role this statement plays within the religious language-game. It’s not a proposition to be verified, but an expression of a deeply held belief and a guide to action.

He uses the analogy of a ritual. The words spoken during a ritual aren’t meant to describe something; they *are* part of the ritual itself. Similarly, religious language isn’t about *saying* something about God; it’s about *relating* to God. The meaning isn’t found in the literal content of the words, but in the way they are used within the religious context.

Illustrative Examples

• Prayer: Prayer isn’t an attempt to change God’s mind or to obtain information. It’s a way of expressing gratitude, seeking guidance, or finding solace.
• Baptism: The words spoken during a baptism aren’t a description of what is happening; they *constitute* the act of baptism.
• Hymns: Hymns aren’t assertions about God; they are expressions of praise and devotion.

Distinction from Earlier Views

It’s crucial to note the contrast with Wittgenstein’s earlier views in the *Tractatus*. There, he argued that religious statements were meaningless because they couldn’t be logically verified. In his later work, he doesn’t claim that religious statements are meaningless, but rather that they have a different kind of meaning – a meaning that isn’t based on truth or falsity, but on use and function within a specific form of life.