RELIGION AND THE LIMITS OF LANGUAGE AND REASON

RELIGION

If I were personally to define religion, I would say that it is a bandage that man has invented to protect a soul made bloody by circumstances. ~Theodore Dreiser, 1941
Religion is one of the most controversial topics in the world in the past, present and maybe even more so in the future. Dreisers quote about religion shows that religion is just manmade because we find it necessary to have a religion. The word religion comes from the Latin word religare which means to tie or to bind.1 It certainly explains the power religion has over a person or a country. If one will look at the several dictionaries one would see that the definition of religion would vary. One definition would be that religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional ritual observances and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2 Another one would be a strong belief in a supernatural being that controls human destiny. 3 These definitions are either too broad or too insufficient in defining religion. When we analyze the two given definitions, we can see that the world belief appears in both definitions. Somehow this is the view of many people in the world. Religion is always related to beliefs and even non-beliefs of the nature and existence of a supernatural being. Philosophy of Religion is the branch of philosophy which examines the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions. Today, philosophy of religion still remains to be an on-going debate throughout the world. A philosophical examination of topics in religion requires inquiries about the human beings place in the universe and about the transcendental relationship oh human beings to the supernatural (if there is really something out there). In doing so, the nature and limit of human thought is scrutinized and investigated. The topic of religion is debatable because of the limits of how human beings express their thought namely through reason and language. Immanuel Kant is one of the philosophers who argued that religion must be discussed through reason alone only. He connected his arguments in his critiques against pure reason to the morality of the world in order to come up with a system that would satisfy both systems of thought through the use of reason alone. Wittgetstein argued that religion has its own language game. This is the reason why we are only limited to our own language game. As a result, we cannot discuss religion when we have different religious language game. He argued that religion is limited to language alone.

www.definition-of.com/religare wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

LIMITS OF REASON
I therefore had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith and religion (subjectively speaking) is the recognition of all our duties as divine commands. 4 Immanuel Kant introduced a modern notion of looking at religion near the end of the 18th century. He had rejected any possibility that there can be a theoretical knowledge about anything which is connected to God like its existence and its . He considers knowledge as something about the transcendent to be practical in nature. While reading some of his ideas on religion, one can see that it is clearly identified with ethics. In his Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, Kant tries to develop his own system regarding religion. He proposed a systematic rationalism of religion. This view of Kant will be highly influential in some of the future works about religion. He was the one who started to talk about religion and God with the use of metaphysics. Instead, he analyzed the way the human mind or consciousness attempts to understand religion and such beliefs. In addition to Kants view, Jakob Friedrich Fries adds an important element which is the feeling of anticipation. Fries argued that because of modernism, the link between faith and reason has been lost. He realized this when he acknowledge the importance of intuitive perception and rational understanding. In Kants system of talking about religion and God, he states that there are three approaches in doing the task of talking or understanding such topics. The first one is that thing which has determinate experience and has specific constitution of the real world. This means that our understanding should come from our experiences which happened in reality. The second one is that thing based on experience which is purely indeterminate. This means that an experience which does not happen in the real world. The third one is an abstraction from all experience which argues that there are things completely a priori. He is saying that there is really no possible theoretical knowledge about God. He also argued that by having the moral laws that human beings practice does not assume the existence of God. 5 Kant notes that the reasons human beings are interested in the concepts of religion and the idea of God are practical. However, we cannot find something that can adequately supply us with answers to all our questions. As a result, we continue to find this proper way to discuss religion and God. Kant proposes a way to do so. Religion in the limits of reason alone considers the argument that the only way to understand religion and the concept of God is through the image of God which can be derived out of the morality that we have. We can do so but we cannot use this image of God as a basis of our morality and our moral obligation. In this way, we can say that morality which can be proven by reason can lead to religion. Morality extends our reason to the idea that a supernatural moral agent outside of the physical world is out there.

Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the limits of reason alone p. 144 and p. 177 http://thinkquest.org/pls/html/think.library

MEANINGFULNESS OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

Over the past years, there have been many serious objections when it comes to the idea that we can talk meaningfully in topics of religion and religious matter. The world today tends to hold the position that the only things that makes sense is if we can measure it scientifically. Topics like God and religion is certainly not things we can measure scientifically. The Logical Positivists proposes that for a language to be meaningful it must either be analytical or synthetic. When we say analytical, it is already true in itself and already known. For example, a puppy is the offspring of a dog. When we say synthetic, it is the reasoning we used based on experience that can be verified. For example, the temperature of the sick child is 48 degrees. They argued that talking about God is either a meaningless sentence composed of words that are constructed in such ways or it has no basis because none of the things we can talk about God can be verified scientifically. This also deals with the notion of falsifiability which means a statement can be subject to falsifiability to be meaningful. This means statement is meaningful if it can be proven to be true or it can be proven to be false. Otherwise, it is meaningless. An example of such statement is the office of the Department of Philosophy is at the third floor of the Faculty Center in U.P. Diliman. This is falsifiable because it can be proven to be true or not true. As we all know, statements like God exists cannot be proven to be true or false. Hence, it is meaningless to talk about such things. In the field of analytic philosophy, they deal with religious language only with the analysis of the propositions and not by proving it to be true or false.

LIMITS OF LANGUAGE
I am not a religious man: but I cannot help but see every problem from a religious point of view (Wittgetstein, 1930) Wittgetstein never committed to any formal religion. In fact, he did not really write any book regarding religion. All the things about Wittgetstein and religion are merely remarks here and there. Wittgetstein argued that human beings who have tried to talk about religion have the natural tendency to go against the boundaries of language. he argues when human beings do this then they are expected to talk nonsense. Wittgetstein believe in the mystical truths surrounding the world but he also acknowledges that these mystical truths cannot be talked about meaningfully even though they are very important to our way of life. One can deduce that these mystical truths even though they are real and believed to be a true concept cannot be easily conceived by any human being. Wittgetstein proposed for people not to think about anything except to analyze language games in our everyday life. He believes that language games are the reason why philosophical, spiritual and personal problems arise in the world. He approaches such problems with an open mind and a critical eye. Wittgetstein is some kind of an Anti-Realist. He vehemently opposed interpretations of religion that emphasizes to prove the existence of God whether they are doctrines or philosophical arguments. For Wittgetstein, rituals in religion are much like gestures in the real

world. It is like when one misses a person and searches for the photograph of that person. Since one misses that person very much then one hugs or kisses the photograph. One does not do this in the belief that the person in the photograph will feel the hug or kiss or even worse the expectation that the person in the photograph will return the hug or kiss. One cannot also consider the act of hugging or kissing the photograph as just a substitute of any kind like I miss you. Like the actions on the photograph, religious activity does not express an attitude. Rather it is not like any other kind of expression of attitude that many others can do. No matter how one misses another person, there would be no substitute to kissing or hugging the person in the flesh than just in a photograph. Some argues that this is how Wittgetstein handles the whole language game of religion. However, there seems to be a problem in this solution. If for example the statement God exists is analyzed this way then it is treated merely as a gesture. It is not treated as literal statements. The limits of my language mean the limits of my world (Tractatus 5.6) Ludwig Wittgetstein rejected the approach of the Logical Positivists. He said that religious language has a language game of its own. A language game has its own set of rules. Having done so, he had ignored the traditional way of handling religious language and uses his own way of expressing religious language. Wittgetstein also demonstrated that since religion has its own language game therefore it also limited in that way. His method is designed so that many people could understand the limits of religion in language. He also argued that the only way human beings can think meaningfully about reality is through the means of meaningful concepts as well. If two persons have the different language game about religion then what is meaningful to one may not be meaningful to the other. It is because we cannot accept to be true something that we have different concepts of. Wittgetstein argued that any appeal to reality or reason can be found and done in the realm of language. He also recognize that as human beings who use language in our everyday life we cannot break free of our language in talking about the world at the same time we should not undermine whatever truth statements we can derived from the world. Wittgetsteinian language game has a set of grammar rules. In such grammar rules, one can find the boundary of what makes sense and what is nonsense. This should be agreed upon by those people having the same language game. The aim in every language game is to have a set of rules that are agreed upon by a set of people so that they can participate well. These rules are not descriptive nor do they refer to anything in the world. When we apply these set of rules in the religion language game, we can see how Wittgetstein views religion and religious beliefs. If a religious belief or a religious claim is to be analyzed as a rule of grammar rather than descriptive of empirical situations then we can see that such statements are not meant to state a factual statement but merely just an attitude of committing oneself to that religious system. To talk of religion or to talk of God does not mean that one is trying to prove if it is true or not but merely a way of saying that the claims in that system is the one you would like to follow and use as a guide in ones life. Wittgetsteins remarks about religion and religious beliefs were questioned and have been subject to debate in a lot of years. Even Wittgetstein himself said that during his time

people do not understand what he is trying to say about religion. Wittgetsteins understanding of religion can lead to a totally new worldview on religious beliefs and its implications to the lives of human beings. It can also lead to a new way about the use of faith and reason in our beliefs and lives.

RESORT TO APOPHATIC WAYS?

We have seen two arguments on how to deal with religion and the topics attached to this like the existence of God, the nature of religion, the language of religion and many other things. Kant uses as his proof the morality he proposed to the whole world. He argued that by having the morality that we have now then we can say that there is a supernatural being that is the ultimate moral maker or the ultimate judge at the end of it all. It is better if we limit religion to reason alone so that people have a universal notion about religion and God. One finds this problematic because before agreeing that we can find the nature or meaningfulness of religion in morality, we must first accept Kants morality is of the world namely the categorical imperatives he suggests. Although, Kant proposed a new way of looking into religion still it cannot account to answer all the possible existing question of religion and all the possible questions that can be raised by his proposal. Therefore, Kants proposal is not adequate to explain or understand religion. Any religion in the world could not exist without the task of talking about God. We can only use human language as a means to do this task because it is the only language that we know. But somehow there is a problem in this scenario. God is not a human being. How is it that we can use human language as a mean to talk about something that is not human? Then we are left to a realization that even though human language is our only means to talk about God we should also respect the face that it is inadequate to do so. The different objections raised in the verification and falsification of religious language have been divided into two: namely those who are radically conservative and those who are radically liberal. The conservatives argue to preserve the literal meaning of religious language. The liberals argue to move away from the literal significance once and for all. Wittgetstein is a popular philosopher known for proposing that every person has a language game. Wittgettstein views religion as something attitudinal. It means that religion is like a particular worldview. Religion is a worldview that guides a persons life which includes his or her actions and judgments on his or her experiences in the world. Religion is a way of living. Wittgetstein argued that religion is limited to the language game that one adheres to. He claims that only those with the same religious language game can understand each other and only then can they talk about things like religion and the world. Many opposed to the claims of Wittgetstein saying that Wittgetstein is proposing to the world to be an atheist. They said that when it comes to the existence of God, it seems that Wittgetsteins view is our language is limited in expressing the proof of the existence of God.

Acoording to Wittgetstein, things that cannot be expressed by language cannot exist. Hence, they believe that Wittgetstein proposes that no God exists. If we analyzed the philosophy of Wittgetstein, we can conclude that Wittgetstein does not propose the existence or non-existence of God. He believes that human language is not adequate when it comes to talking about God per se. although, he said that we can talk about God if we have the same language game he also argues that when we talk about God we are not referring to God per se but to a thing that we relate to God. Kant was not successful in proving the meaningfulness of religion in his morality. When we look it in another perspective we can say that Kant also adheres to some kind of language game and if one does not accept his language game then one cannot fully understand what he is trying to propose. Wittgetstein gives us venue to talk about religious beliefs saying that all of it is just adhering to some perspective of looking at the world. But in the end, he argues that language is not enough to talk about God per se. Is this a reason why some people resort to apophatic theology? People know that they are limited both by reason and language hence, they do not think there is a way to talk about God except silence.

Bibliography
Clack, B.R. An Introduction to Wittgetstein's Philosophy of Religion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.

Encyclopedia, New World. Philosophy of Religion. New York, 25 June 2006. Harris, Jane. Analytic Philosophy. MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. Lazenby, J. Mark. The early Wittgetstein on religion. York Road, London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006. Malcolm, Norman. Wittgetstein: A Religious Point of View. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Paperbacks, 1995. White, Roger M. Talking about God: The Concept of Analogy and the Problem of Religous Language. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010.