This is a pretty gross and overly simplistic commentary on Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein repeatedly shows how philosophers are confused about philosophical problems which means that religious people may be similarly confused about religious language. Every example given here of religious people rejecting these so called “Wittgensteinian” approaches are examples of religious people already being confused about their own religious language. These 3 interpretations are not indicative of the work of people like DZ Philipps but I’m sure it will make atheists feel like they’ve scored one against Wittgenstein. I don’t write this as an apologist for religious belief so don’t go disqualifying me. I actually think the notion of religious beliefs is confused from the start.
" Nobody dies for culture." (Terry Eagleton) By extension, nobody dies for non-cognitivism or religious, zombie metaphorical belief.
Elucidate
This is a pretty gross and overly simplistic commentary on Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein repeatedly shows how philosophers are confused about philosophical problems which means that religious people may be similarly confused about religious language. Every example given here of religious people rejecting these so called “Wittgensteinian” approaches are examples of religious people already being confused about their own religious language. These 3 interpretations are not indicative of the work of people like DZ Philipps but I’m sure it will make atheists feel like they’ve scored one against Wittgenstein. I don’t write this as an apologist for religious belief so don’t go disqualifying me. I actually think the notion of religious beliefs is confused from the start.