Challemges To Religious Language As Cognitive Amd Anological Flashcards
(13 cards)
What was St Thomas Aquinas’ view on religious language?
St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) considered the function of religious language differently to the verificationist, looking at how we could further understand the mysteries of divine nature. Aquinas settled for the middle ground of analogy: for him, God’s transcendent and omniscient nature could never be fully understood as humans were too limited. Aquinas thought that all terms about God should be thought of analogically: “It seems that no word can be used literally of God.” Whilst, in many ways, analogy is a useful way of helping to gain insights into the meaningfulness of religious language, it is not without its limitations.
What is the limitation of analogy according to Hume?
As recognised by Hume in his ‘Dialogues concerning Natural Religion’, an analogy is only as good as the point at which the two things being compared are similar. The issue for religious language, which was central to the concerns raised by the Vienna Circle, was whether humans really know what they mean by the term ‘God’: he cannot be empirically quantified. As Hume highlights that “A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence.” Our point of comparison therefore fails, along with the analogy: this renders analogical language as meaningless in terms of claims concerning God.
What did Duns Scotus argue about analogy?
Duns Scotus also argued that analogy is too vague and leaves us unable to understand God: as he puts it: “if an entity is finite or infinite […] it has its own intrinsic degree of finite or infinite perfection”, therefore, humans and God are not comparable by analogy.
What is Lem’s perspective on God’s nature?
In support, Lem maintains that God’s incomprehensible and inexplicable nature suggests he is totally beyond any human understanding: he states “Transposed into any human language, the values and meanings involved lose all substance; they cannot be brought intact through the barrier.”
What assumption do Aquinas and Ramsey make regarding God?
Aquinas and Ramsey both assume God’s existence: Aquinas believed that God was ultimately responsible for the creation of the earth, as shown in his Five Ways, and thus believed that humans were created “in our [God’s] image, in our [God’s] likeness”, as is stated in Genesis (imago dei).
How do Darwin and Dawkins challenge Aquinas’ assumptions?
This idea is refuted implicitly by Darwin and Dawkins: Dawkins maintained in ‘The God Delusion’ that “There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point.” Therefore, if one doesn’t accept Aquinas’ assumptions, one doesn’t have to accept the idea that we can understand God by examining a creation that may or may not be his.
What does St Paul suggest about understanding God?
Even if we were to accept Aquinas’ and Ramsey’s assumption in relation to the existence of God, our lack of empirical knowledge of what constitutes God means the most successful use of language about God is equivocal: in this sense, we know that God is different, thus the meaning of words is different.
However, this does not solve the challenge of finding a meaningful way to talk of God. St Paul suggests that we may have to wait until the eschatological gap is bridged in the afterlife before we describe God and make sense and meaningfulness of religious language. In Corinthians 13:12 he states “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face; now I know in part.”
What is Richard Swinburne’s criticism of analogy?
Another criticism is that of Richard Swinburne, who argues that we don’t really need analogy at all. When we say ‘God is good’ and ‘humans are good’, we may be using ‘good’ to apply to different things, but we can still use it univocally, to have universal meaning: thus, Aquinas’ theory of analogy is unnecessary.
What does Ramsey say about the limitations of language regarding God?
Furthermore, Ramsey’s use of qualifiers simply highlights that we do not fully understand what we mean when referring to God: we can only ever get an insight. Ramsey admitted this by stating “They disclose but do not explain a mystery”, thus analogy is not a suitable way to talk meaningfully about God.
How do Aquinas and Ramsey contribute to religious belief?
Regardless of the challenges to the use of analogy in helping to talk meaningfully about God and other forms of religious language, the work of both Aquinas and Ramsey have been useful for those that profess a religious belief. For example, religious teachings expressed through religious language, can often be seen to be opaque from the perspective of those outside tradition.
However, by considering the idea that there is a connection between a creator God and his creation, it means there is a suitable point of reference between the two: thus, illuminating what would otherwise be impossible to understand. Therefore, to talk about God is to talk about something that is the source of all human activity: this means that insights into religious belief and practice can be gained by considering their root in the realm of human experiences, which can form gateways into the realm of the divine.
What analogy does Iqbal propose regarding divine life?
Iqbal proposed that “Divine life is in touch with the whole universe on the analogy of the soul’s contact with the body.” Analogies of proportion and attribution therefore give humans a clear point of reference and act as a means of accessing an understanding of the spiritual realm.
What is Ramsey’s view on discussing God?
Ramsey’s models help to disclose divine attributes and his qualifiers make a sense of the impossibility of actually describing God. Ramsey maintains that “God … an irreducible posit” can only be talked about when “object-language is qualified”: this assists religious believers in understanding how it is possible to talk about things which relate to God, whilst appreciating that things of this nature are beyond our actual understanding.
Conclusion?
Ramsey wrote “Let us always be cautious of talking about God in straightforward language.” Therefore, the myriad of religious teachings that relate to concepts such as God, the revelation of scripture, divine election and salvation are well served by the work of both Aquinas and Ramsey who provide a useful means by which to communicate these ideas and reflect on their meanings, whilst retaining a sense of how they relate to the mundanity of the empirical world.
