Religious language Flashcards
Cognitive vs non-cognitive statements
Cognitive - statements about God that can be known as either true or false
Non-cognitive - statements that are not subject to truth or falsity, they are abstract and not to be taken as literally true/false
Quote for God being incomprehensible
“God cannot be the object of human comprehension … it is, therefore, more becoming to be silent” - Moses Maimonides
Apophatic way
via negativa
to describe God by negative statements
ie God is ineffable
Cataphatic way
via positiva
to describe God by positive statements
ie God is love
Arguments for the apophatic way
Using via negativa is less limiting
Normal human language (via positiva) is too limiting
via negativa also preserves the mystery of God and does not anthropomorphise him
Maimonides on the apophatic way
Positive language is appropriate for the finite world, but as God is beyond this it no longer works
We can build understanding of God by knowing what he isn’t
Within ten people describing a ship by what it isn’t, the tenth will know it is a ship
People who use positive language lack understanding and unconsciously abandon their faith in the mysterious God
Criticisms of the apophatic way
B Davies criticised Maimonides’ claim that ten people could work out a ship by what it isn’t: this isn’t necessarily true and highlights the failings of via negativa - if it cannot practically be applied to everyday objects, how can it work for God?
Symbols
Paul Tillich
Symbols don’t entirely accurately describe God but it points in the right direction and the effect it has is more important
Like music with a meaning that cannot be worded
Symbols are self transcending: they indicate something beyond their literal selves - ie a cross puts people in mind of Jesus
Religious experiences are the root of faith and we can only describe these by symbolism: what we express through symbol comes from the part of the unconscious mind that is designed to deal with the divine
Criticisms of symbol
They are very open to interpretation - in the same way music is
Randall - symbols are non-cognitive and offer no objective reality
Hick - many things we want to say about God come from our conscious mind ie teleological argument
Paul Edwards - they are subjective and cannot be falsified or verified: they convey no facts and so are meaningless
Aristotle on analogy
If two things share a common attribute they must be similar in one way or another
1. the strength of the analogy depends on how many similarities are shared
2. similarity exists only in identical relations and properties
3. good analogies are based on common causes or commun underlying principles
4. good analogical arguments do not need to assume acquaintance with the underlying generalisation
Aquinas on analogy
We need to accept that our language is inadequate to express the divine, but that that does not mean religious language says nothing
Expressing our limits in understanding say something about God, that he is unknowable
We should use analogical language for God as univocal and equivocal language don’t work
The point isn’t to precisely tell us everything about God, but to demonstrate we can say something positive about God even if it is restrictive
Aquinas on univocal language
To use a word the same way in two different sentences: “my cat is gay” and “that cat is red” use “cat” univocally
Language about God is not univocal: to say a charity worker is good and God is good do not mean “good” in the same way
Aquinas on equivocal language
To use a word to mean something different in different contexts
ie banger could mean a firework, sausage or a good song
Equivocal language doesn’t work for God as we would be equating God to humanity
Analogy of attribution
Based on the idea that God is the creator of everything
States that we may observe the creation to infer information about the creator
ie beauty in nature implies beauty in God - like an artist
Satisfies Aristotle’s third criterion
Criticism: an animal’s urine will tell you if it is healthy, but not what the animal is like: there is a limit to how much this can tell us
Analogy of proportion
Based on the notion that if something is true of one thing, it can be proportionally more true of another thing
ie a 8 year old student who is “good” at maths isn’t as “good” at maths as an Oxford maths professor
We can call God “good”, “loving” or “just” because we see it in humans, but he is more so than we can understand: there is enough in common to use the terms
