As for the belief in God, I like the view that is taken as Wittgensteinian Fidiesm, which is based in large part on Wittgensteins theory of meaning and his use of 'language games' as a technique for doing philosophy.
For Wittgenstein, we must understand the grammer of our language in order to clarify our thoughts and expressions because our language concepts 'are' our thoughts. We usually have an idea of a word and dogmatically apply that idea to every given situation in which that word occurs, but, this is just not how language works. Meanings of the same words differ enourmously in the different 'language games' that we play. Context is everything, without knowing the context, the word has no life.
For instance, imagine an inside joke or sarcasm, what it means to one person will mean something entirely different to someone who stands outside of what it means, although they both 'hear' the exact same words being spoken. The meaning of a word is its use, and that use depends on the context in which it is spoken, and also the intention of the person speaking it. It is a mistake to think a word means one thing, and apply that meaning to all situations.
Now, we take a look at the word 'God'. The first thing that comes to mind is an entity who is all knowing, all loving, etc. The 'meaning' here can be quite different from what the word actually stands for in the minds of believers, even if they do not realize it. We need to break this dogmatic application of the idea of a word to all situations.
One does not learn about God like we learn about the existence of other things, such as animals or plants. Sometimes when we learn about an animal or plant we are shown a picture, a drawing, etc. These pictures refer to something, namely the real animal or plant, in other words, that which the picture 'pictures'. But, one does not learn about God in this way. There is nothing that the picture 'pictures' when learning about God, there is only the picture. The existence of the object in the picture is irrelevant when a belief of God is concerned because there is no way of seeing what the picture pictures. Only the picture itself matters.
This is very similar to the way that we learn about the words good and bad. We do not need to know what the picture pictures (i.e. an object which is called 'good'), we just need the picture itself. There is no object which is called 'good' and neither is there an object called 'bad'. We find good in the acts of others, in the way the world works, in the way we are treated. We do not discover good through what the picture pictures, but rather though the picture itself. Just the same one does not know God through what the picture pictures, one finds God in beauty, in praise, in prayer, in worship, etc. God is not discovered though an object called 'God' (i.e. what the picture pictures), but rather though a perception of reality that imprints itself on the believer (i.e. the picture itself).
Thus, the word 'God' in the mind of a believer is a perception of reality in which there is a God, not a belief in what the picture pictures, but rather it is a belief in the picture itself, not what is behind it. Just as someone who believes in the word good has a perception of reality in which there is good, not a belief of what the picture pictures (i.e. the object 'good').
The word 'God' to the non-believer is referring to what the picture pictures, not a perception of reality, but to the entitiy in which the picture is supposed to be picturing. Both parties use the word 'God' but mean something entirely different by it, thus arguments about God between the believer and the non-believer pass each other by, because they are not arguing about the same thing and neither of them realizes it. Context is everything when using language, and neither party realizes they are speaking from entirely different contexts.
When one loses the belief in God, he does not realize that their no longer is an object named 'God' that exists, but rather his perception of reality has changed. He does not see God in the world anymore, he cannot turn a blind eye to the ugliness, the hatred, the inequality. He has a change of perspective. Likewise, when someone finds God, they do not suddenly discover an object that was not there before, because there is no object to discover. They find God in beauty, in prayer, in worship, through a new perspective in life that allows for the perception of God to enter into their thoughts. Prayer, worship, they mean nothing to man, suddenly ones perspective changes and they mean everything to him. Did this come from the discovery of an object that was not there before? I would say no, because there is no object to discover. Or, did this come from a change of perception? I would have to say yes because the same acts mean something different now, he did not discover a new object, but he has rather discovered a different way of seeing things.
The non-believer, who argues about what the picture pictures (the object God), does not realize that the believer is arguing about the picture itself (the perception of reality which manifests itself as God). The believer who argues about the picture, mistakingly believes that he is arguing about what the picture pictures, but he is not. This is probably because it is human nature to need to justify our beliefs, but, imagine trying to justify 'good' because there is an object that exists that is called 'good', nonsense! That is just not how a belief in good and God work. There is nothing which the picture pictures here, only the picture.
19 May 2006, 2:15 am
