Abstract

I evaluate the plausibility of how broadly ‘Wittgensteinian’ approaches to the philosophy of religion: looking in the first half of the essay at the account such approaches give of the meaning of religious utterances, and in the second half at the account given of the required justification for believing such utterances. As regards the meaning of religious utterances I distinguish weak and strong Wittgensteinian theses, supporting the former but refuting the latter. Turning to Wittgensteinian approaches to the justification of religious beliefs I argue that although some beliefs are ‘groundless’ in a way that makes them an unquestionable feature of our conceptual landscape, anything as interesting as a religious belief can not be ‘groundless’ in the relevant sense (of being invulnerable to attack). Finally I argue that only Wittgensteinian approaches can capture the meaning and justificatory requirements of religious beliefs for a minority of ‘believers’: but that this minority is important.