Religious Studies Faculty Publications
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2012
Publication Source
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Abstract
In an otherwise superbly edited compilation of student notes from Wittgenstein’s 1939 Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cora Diamond makes a false step that reveals to us our own tendencies to misread Wittgenstein. The student notes she collated attributed the following remark to a student named Watson: “The point is that these [data] tables do not by themselves determine that one builds the bridge in this way: only the tables together with certain scientific theory determine that.” But Diamond thinks this a mistake, presuming instead to change the manuscript and put these words into the mouth of Wittgenstein. But to make such a change shows a lamentable, even if commonplace, ignorance of engineering. Diamond apparently shares this ignorance with Watson, and presumably with most of us as well, especially those of us who are educated in math and science, because this education makes us think we understand engineering by extension. But we do not. I intend to show why Wittgenstein the former engineer could never have made the remark Diamond wants to attribute to him. The reasons drastically undermine the myth of Wittgensteinian fideism and have bearing on the manner of our conversations about religious pluralism.
Inclusive pages
55-73
ISBN/ISSN
0020-7047
Document Version
Postprint
Copyright
Copyright © 2012, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.
Publisher
Springer
Volume
71
Issue
1
Peer Reviewed
yes
eCommons Citation
Kallenberg, Brad, "Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook" (2012). Religious Studies Faculty Publications. 82.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub/82
Included in
Catholic Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Comments
The document available for download, posted here in compliance with the journal's policy on self-archiving, is the author's accepted manuscript, which may differ from the published article. If quoting this article directly, it is suggested that a researcher consult the version of record.
Permission documentation is on file.