Wittgenstein against Fraser; a comparative study between Wittgenstein's and Frazer's views on the relationship between religion and scientific rationality.

Author

Ph.D student of moral philosophy, University of Qom

10.22080/jre.2024.26269.1188

Abstract

Frazer and Wittgenstein had a completely different approach to the nature of religion and rationality arising from science. In Frazer's view, scientific rationality is the standard of everything; therefore, he puts religion aside. The result of Frazer's comparison between magic, religion, and science leads to the denial of religious rationality. Frazer's anthropology is based on scientific and rational explanations. According to him, after centuries of displacement in history, science has finally obtained the golden key that opens the doors of nature's treasure. Wittgenstein criticizes Frazer's opinions based on his fundamental thinking about the meta-rationality of faith. He rejects any rational and scientific explanation of religion. According to Wittgenstein, the language game of religion and the language game of science differ. Frazer cannot compare the rationality of believers' religiosity with the criteria of rationality in science and sees and despises the believers as completely wrong. This study, by analyzing Frazer's and Wittgenstein's opinions and after examining the conflict, will reveal why Frazer's criticisms of scientific rationality failed and how Wittgenstein, using metaphors such as language games and the form of life, freed religious rationality from the trap of Frazer's narrow-minded scientific criteria.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics