^{page 191 note 1} This now turns out to be inaccurate. Since this was first written, the following book has been announced: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief.

^{page 191 note 2} The scattered but central sources here are as follows: Winch, Peter, The Idea of a Social Science (London: 1958)Google Scholar; ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. I (10, 1964), pp. 307–325Google Scholar; Hughes, G. E., ‘Martin's Religious Belief’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 40 (08, 1962), pp. 211–19Google Scholar; Malcolm, Norman, ‘Anselm's Ontological Arguments’, The Philosophical Review (1960)Google Scholar; ‘Is it a Religious Belief That “God Exists”?’; Faith and the Philosophers, Hick, John (ed.) (New York: 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Geach, Peter, ‘Nominalism’, Sophia, vol. III No. 2 (1964)Google Scholar; Cavell, Stanley, ‘Existentialism and Analytic Philosophy, Daedalus, vol. 93 (Summer, 1964)Google Scholar; Cameron, J. M., The Night Battle (Baltimore: 1962)Google Scholar; ‘What Is a Christian?’ The New York Review of Books, vol. VI (05 26 1966)Google Scholar; Coburn, Robert, ‘A Neglected Use of Theological Language’, Mind, vol. LXXII (07, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} Ziff, Paul, ‘About God’ in Religious Experience and Truth, Sidney, Hook (ed.) (New York: 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} Malcolm, Norman, ‘Anselm's Ontological Arguments’, The Philosophical Review (1960).Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 3} Hägerström, Axel, Philosophy and Religion (London: 1964), p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} I do not necessarily lay all these aperçu at Wittgenstein's door, but all of them can clearly be found in one or another of his disciples.

^{page 194 note 1} Hughes, G. E., ‘Martin's Religious Belief’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 40 (08, 1962), pp. 211–19.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 2} Ibid., p. 214.

^{page 194 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 195 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 195 note 2} Ibid., pp. 214–5.

^{page 195 note 3} Ibid., p. 215.

^{page 195 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 195 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 195 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 195 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 196 note 1} Ibid., pp. 215–6.

^{page 198 note 1} The central essay here is his ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. I (10, 1964), pp. 307–325.Google Scholar But see also Winch, Peter,The Idea of a Social Science (London: 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Winch, Peter, ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. I (10, 1964), p. 308.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 198 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 199 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 199 note 2} Ibid., p. 309.

^{page 199 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 199 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 200 note 1} Peter Winch, The Idea of a Social Science, p. 100.

^{page 202 note 1} Fiedler, Leslie, ‘Introduction’ to Simone Weil's Waiting For God (New York: 1951), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} That ‘determinate reality’ is a pleonasm has been argued in a powerful way by Hägerström, Axel in his Philosophy and Religion (London: 1964).Google Scholar It is surely to be hoped that the rest of Hägerström's writings in Swedish will soon be made available to non-Swedish readers.

^{page 203 note 1} Nielsen, Kai, ‘On Speaking of God’, Theoria, vol. XXVIII (1962, Part 2)Google Scholar; ‘Religion and Commitment’, Problems of Religious Knowledge and Language; W. T. Blackstone and R. H. Ayers (eds.), forthcoming; ‘Eschatological Verification’, Canadian Journal of Theology, vol. IX (1963)Google Scholar; ‘God and Verification Again’, Canadian Journal of Theology, vol. XI (1965)Google Scholar; ‘On Fixing the Reference Range of “God”’, Religious Studies (October, 1966).

^{page 205 note 1} Winch, Peter, ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. I (10, 1964), p. 319.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Winch, Peter, The Idea of a Social Science, pp. 100–1.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Winch, Peter, ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. I (10, 1964), p. 319.Google Scholar