In response to Jermaine’s comments here
I would like to say that Wittgenstein is quietist in that he evokes an immanent field of language games and forms of life. At this level he “leaves everything as it is” in that he himself refuses any transcendent instance which would allow one to retain one set of language games as veridical, and reject all others. Here history and sociology rule, as you indicated. This is the level where the death of God is a sociological event, … or not. Michel Onfray notes ironically that the 20th Century was the century of the death of all sorts of things (the death of art, of the book, of philosophy, etc) and that in each case the declaration of such a death has been followes by a plethora of manifestations of life:
“God’s death was an ontological gimmick, a conjuror’s trick.
It was consubstantial with a twentieth century that saw death
everywhere — the death of art, of philosophy, of metaphysics, of
the novel, of music, of politics. So let’s announce the death of all
these fictional deaths! Tongue-in-cheek obituaries that once
served certain thinkers — before they turned their metaphysical
coats — as a dramatic setting for the paradoxes they uncovered.
The death of philosophy engendered works of philosophy, the
death of the novel generated novels, the death of art produced
works of art, etc. As for God’s death, it has released an outpouring
of the sacred, the divine, the religious. Today we swim in these purgative waters.”
This is an empirical question.
But Wittgenstein is not quietist when dealing with attempts to posit a trancendent instance outside language games. His whole philosophical effort is against such attempts at installing, or surreptitiously or inadvertently presupposing, such a transcendence. I think we can distinguish two senses of the suffix “a-”: a negative sense in which atheism would be part of a belief system rival to theism; a privative sense located at a methodological level, in which atheism would be the refusal to let the supposition of a transcendent instance determine, orient or found our philosophical investigations. This is the level of Morton’s (and Zizek’s) post-lacanian slogan: The Big Other does not exist.