Language, belief and plurality: a contribution to understanding religious diversity

  • Marciano Adilio Spica


My purpose in this paper is to defend the legitimacy of different religious systems by showing that they arise naturally as a consequence of the fact that we are linguistic beings. I will show that we do not need to presume that such belief systems all have something in common, and that even if they did we would most probably be unaware of it. I shall argue, however, that this lack of a common core does not mean that understanding between different belief systems is impossible, and that, in fact, a dialogue between them is possible without one system being reduced to another. I will defend these ideas through the use of some principles expounded in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, especially the world-picture concept.


Religious diversity Language Belief Plurality World-picture 



I am grateful to Victoria Harrison for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


  1. Davidson, D. (1991). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Hamilton, A. (2014). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Wittgenstein and On Certainty. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Harrison, V. (2006). Internal realism and the problem of religious diversity. Philosophia, 34, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Harrison, V. S. (2008). Internal realism. Religious Pluralism and Ontology, Philosophia, 36, 97–110.Google Scholar
  5. Harrison, V. S. (2012). An internal pluralist solution to the problem of religious and ethical diversity. sophia, 51, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hick, J. (1982). God has many names. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hick, J. (1985). Problems of religious pluralism. New York: St. Martin’s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hick, J. (1989). An interpretation of religion: Humanity’s varied response to the transcendent. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hick, J. (1995). The rainbow of faith. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kusch, M. (2013). Annalisa Coliva on Wittgenstein and Epistemic Relativism. Philosophia, 41, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Malcolm, N. (1993). Wittgenstein: A religious point of view? Edited with a response by peter winch. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2007). Understanding Wittgenstein’s on certainty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Phillips, D. Z. (1983). Wittgenstein and religion. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, D. Z. (1995). Faith after foundationalism: Critiques and alternatives. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Plantinga, A. (2000). Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism. In P. L. Quinn & K. Meeker (Eds.), The philosophical challenge of religious diversity (pp. 172–192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pritchard, D. (2012). Wittgenstein and the groundlessness of our believing. Synthese, 189, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rahner, K. (2001). Christians and the non-christian religions. In J. Hick & B. Hebblethwaite (Eds.), Christianity and other religions (pp. 19–38). Oxford: One World.Google Scholar
  18. Rhees, R. (2003). In D. Z. Phillips (Ed.), Wittgenstein’s on certainty: There - like our live. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Schönbaumsfeld, G. (2007). A confusion of the Spheres: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein on philosophy and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wainwright, W. (2005). Competing religious claims. In W. Mann (Ed.), The blackwell guide to the philosophy of religion (pp. 220–240). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. William, B. (1981). Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L. (1972). On certainty. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Wittgenstein, L. (1993). Remarks on frazer’s golden bough. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversidade Estadual do Centro-OesteGuarapuavaBrazil

Personalised recommendations