religious language 1 Flashcards
what is the problem with religious langauge?
we try to apply finite human language to God who is infinite, which limits him
how can we avoid this problem
we can talk about God by saying what he is not, by using the apophatic way.
name of philosopher who argued for the apophatic way
pseudo-dionysius
what did pseudo-dionysius argue
the via negativa is the only way in which we can talk truthfully about God because God is beyond all human understanding
it is counter-productive to speak of God as though God can be perceived through the senses, or we can reach God through reason
if you try to find God through reason you will believe in a God who is too small. People should stop trying to use logic or reasoned arguments
what is the problem with Pseudo-dionysius saying that we should stop using logic or reasoned arguments to understand God
why did god give us reason and intelligence above animals if we dont use it?
pseudo-dionysius and plato
he was a follower of plato, believing in the division between the physical body and the spiritual soul, and the physical realm and the world of forms. language which is rooted in the physical world (world of shadows) does not help us talk about God.
cognitive language
language which is either true or false
medieval mystic text
“the cloud of unknowing” was greatly influenced by Pseudo-dionysius. this is the idea that the true nature of God is hidden from us, that we cant possibly know about God because he is above all rational thought
second thinker who supported the use of the apophatic way
moses maimonides (medieval jewish thinker)
maimonodes analogy
ship analogy
maimonides ship analogy
a person may know that a ship exists without knowing what a ship is. maimonides argues that after describing something using negative statements such as
1. it is not an accident
2. it is not a mineral
3. it is not a plant etc.
a person will eventually have a very clear idea of what a ship was, once all of the things a ship is not have been considered and this concept will not limit the abilities of the ship
strength of the apophatic way
for some it is the best way of talking about God because it recognises that we have to go beyond out everyday experiences or languages to encounter God.
it is a way of saying something about God that is literally true. there is no need for interpretation of symbols, analogies or allegories. the via negativa asserts a literal truth that would be true across all cultures and can therefore be understood across continents and ages
strength of via negativa
for people who already believe in God, the apophatic way is a reminder that they cannot limit God in their speech or imagination and so may lead them to a greater and deeper understanding of God
the apophatic way acknowleges that there are sometimes rational difficulties in talking about God, but these rational difficulties are irrelevant to belief in God. it makes the experience of believing in God more important than the ability to describe, explain or prove that beleif. for believers this may be a much more fulfilling way of thinking about God.
strength of via negativa
does not anthropomorphise God
weakness of via negativa
it is unclear how saying what something is not, helps me understand what something is. to say that ‘black’ is ‘not white’ actually tells me nothing about black
if we have no knowledge of black or white then the statement ‘black is not white’ would be meaningless as we know nothing about either of the terms
we would also have to have knowledge of every colour that exists in order to identify the colour
brian davies second part of his argument
he goes on to say that - imagine there is something in my room and suppose i reject every suggestion you make as to what is actually there. in that case you will get no idea at all about what is in my room
