Religious Language Flashcards
What is the Apophatic Way/via negativa?
- Argument that we can’t talk about God in positive terms because human language is inadequate when trying to describe ineffable qualities of God.
o Therefore theological language is best approached by negation. - The Mystic, John of Cross suggested we talk about God in negative terms; what he is not e.g instead of ‘God is good’
- Pseudo-Dionyisus: by saying ‘God is not darkness’ we are not saying ‘God is light’, simply that God is beyond the light/dark distinction. By negation he does not mean privation. ‘[Religious language] is beyond assertion or denial’.
What are the criticisms of the Apophatic Way?
• It avoids anthropomorphising G-d, which the via positiva does (uses human words to describe G-d).
• Brian Davies: we would need to list everything God is not, which would lead to absurdity since He is not an infinite number of things e.g God is not a wombat
• Only gives vague understanding -if any- of what God’s like. Attempting to know God by knowing nothing.
o Pessimistic: leaves us with a sense of utter inability to understand or say anything about God. Gives feeling of radical otherness but not a close relationship.
• Seems like a contradiction to talk about God in negative terms when he is meant to be worthy of worship
• Verses in the Bible that support the view that we cannot describe God.
• Numbers: “God is not human that He should lie, not human that He should change His mind”
• God says to Moses “I am that I am” - implies that he cannot be explained in words.
• BUT Bible also describes God in positive terms: “God is love” and “God is spirit”. God even himself describes himself in positive terms: ”I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” (Exodus 20:5). The Bible therefore seems to suggest that via positiva language (cataphatic way) about God is valid. The Via Negativa approach seems to go against the Bible.
• Mostly based upon the via positiva: must have an understanding of what God is to know what God is not- reliant on via positiva anyway.
What is the Cataphatic Way/via positiva?
- Argument that it is possible to say something about God: if we were made by God to worship him, and the customary mode of human expression is speech then it follows that what we say about him could be positively indicative and meaningful even if it cannot be precise.
- Aquinas agreed with the via negativa to some extent but thought we could talk about God meaningfully in positive terms through analogy. Three categories of language for talking about God: equivocal, unequivocal and analogy (which he favoured).
o Analogy is the middle-ground between univocal and equivocal: a comparison between two things in which the first, simpler thing, is used to explain the more complicated thing. Therefore it relies on the fact that there is some point of comparison (like univocal) but that we can still understand the words in different contexts (like equivocal).
We are not the same or totally different to God: middle ground we are ‘like’ God and are analogous to him. Genesis tells us we are created in God’s ‘image’ and ‘likeness’.
o Ferré (American metaphysician): shouldn’t concentrate on how analogies might ‘define’ concepts e.g God as ‘powerful’ because we just don’t know the nature of God. Instead shows us how we need to use words carefully, has its source in God being beyond our understanding, and using terms with the understanding that we cannot capture God exactly through them
What is the analogy of proportion?
(Qualities of something are proportional to its nature)
o If something is true of a given person, then it can be more true of another person.
o If we say ‘God is powerful’ and ‘John is powerful’ we may not be able to fully understand God’s omnipotence (cannot calculate a strict proportion) but we can have an insight into his power. We know what ‘powerful’ means in relation to a finite human being, so it must be greater when applied to an infinite, perfect being like God (in whose image we are created).
What are the criticisms of the analogy of proportion?
o Pros:
i. Utilises understanding from empiricism as it starts with concepts that are meaningful to us. Accessible - people can have an understanding of God because they understand these ideas.
o Cons:
i. We can’t understand a concept beyond what we know e.g cannot imagine something ‘more good’ than the ‘most good’ thing we know.
ii. We may understand concept (e.g. power) but not the qualifier (e.g. infinitely) as we are finite.
iii. If God is infinitely powerful then anything a degree lower is no longer powerful- concept is absolute. If God is ‘powerful’ in a greater way than ‘John’, then ‘John’ is no longer powerful. Can something be more true?
What is the analogy of attribution?
o Language is used to indicate one thing caused another: we can say something about a creator from looking at the product he has created, can infer some quality of the artist from their painting e.g liked bright colours and broad brush-strokes, but the painting is not the artist. If nature is beautiful, we can attribute this idea of ‘beauty’ to God (as the ultimate creator of everything) too.
i. Aquinas’ example of looking at the urine of a bull to determine if the bull was healthy, does not mean that the bull is like a collection of urine- even if we can’t see the bull.
What are the criticisms of the analogy of attribution?
o Pros:
i. Accessible: people can have understanding of God because they understand these ideas
ii. Intuitive: makes sense for god to be an exemplification of good in humankind
o Cons:
i. There are bad, stupid people: we would have to attribute these to God as well. How do we decide which attributes to assign to God and which to ignore, for example the choice to look at the health of the urine is perhaps arbitrary, could equally say that it is a liquid so conclude that a bull is liquid?
1. But human badness came from original sin. The analogy between God and human qualities only refers to those we had when we were first made in God’s likeness.
ii. Fallacy of composition: Hume, something being true of a part does not make it true of a whole. Just because people are ‘powerful’ does not mean God must be powerful (or ‘bad’ or ‘stupid’ or ‘good’).
iii. Feuerbach: humans made God in their image, rather than the other way around. Societies project onto God their most valued qualities so that he becomes an ideal and worthy of worship. Therefore it is not very meaningful to draw conclusions about what God is like through looking at the qualities of the people who ‘created’ him.
iv. Real life: the average Christian is unlikely to think of their religious language as analogical. Aquinas has provided a philosophically defensible way to talk about God, but doesn’t capture the role it plays in people’s spiritual lives.
What is univocal language?
- Language used in broadly the same sense in different situations
- E.g. if you say you love your mother, cake, and a romantic partner the meaning of ‘love’ may differ slightly between the three but there is enough similarity between the use of the words to understand what is meant by this.
What are the criticisms of univocal language?
- Pro: gives us way of tangibly understanding what God is like e.g we understand broadly what ‘love’ means, so can take meaning from the statement ‘God loves his creation’.
- Cons:
• This limits G-d because G-d is beyond humans and our language. Our understanding of love is not sufficient as G-d’s love is greater than ours.
• Anthropomorphise G-d.
• Still do not understand it specifically in relation to G-d, for example when we say G-d is love - we do not know which type of love that is like.
What is equivocal language?
- The same language can be used in two different situations and have 2 different meanings
- E.g. words can be used as both a verb and a noun: fly the insect and fly a plane, but also different nouns financial bank and river bank. They have nothing in common, usually just share a name by coincidence. God does not ‘love’ at all in the same way I ‘love’ my family.
What are the criticisms of equivocal language?
PROS:
• Doesn’t bind G-d to being the same as the concept we already have, allows more scope for G-d to be greater.
• Recognises that G-d is separate and different for humans.
CONS:
• Leads to easy confusion.
• If our love is different entirely from G-d’s love then talking about G-d in this way is meaningless.
What is symbol?
- Sign indicates something whereas a symbol represents something and its meaning.
- Paul Tillich thought symbols represent the reality to which they point – says ‘they are the means by which religious language communicates religious experiences’. Symbols participate in their meaning.
- Flag of USA is, yes, a sign to show a connection with the USA in some way, but also is part of the USA: in every courthouse, public building, classroom. It’s a deeply meaningful part of the USA at home and abroad.
- In the same way ‘God is love’ is a participation in the reality of God. It is both ‘affirmed’ (God really is love) and ‘negated’ (human terms are inadequate) by the reality of God. All religious language is like this. Also true for symbols like the cross etc. all elicit a response and point to something beyond themselves.
o When we use religious language we are actually using symbols e.g ‘God is love’- both ‘God’ and ‘love’ are stand ins for an ultimate reality. Religious language is meaningful insofar as it participates in the being of God. - Acts like a religious experience as a way to connect human minds to God without needing to fully understand him.
What are the criticisms of symbol?
o Accessible: not everyone can read or understand stories of the Bible. Evokes a more intuitive response that can be more meaningful than true/false language.
• Evokes a more intuitive response that can be more meaningful than language. Fits in with the idea that G-d is personal.
• When a Christian looks at a crucifix or prays, there’s a deep and meaningful spiritual experience. Tillich is successful in understanding that sort of profound personal meaning.
o Bible: clearly contains symbolic and metaphorical elements e.g creation story and fall symbolises fragile and finite nature of human life.
o Not symbolic: much religious language in the Bible e.g Jesus born in Bethlehem must surely have been intended to be taken literally? Hard to view symbolically.
§ Tilich argues that this is a matter of historical/scientific fact and is actually irrelevant to religion, which is mainly concerned with human spirituality. Facts in the Bible aren’t really religious, the religious language within it is.
· William Alston: objective factual content is required for religious language because religion is concerned with fact e.g whether or not we will go to hell. Religious language cannot be symbolic. Tillich goes too far in reducing all language to symbols. (Tilich would say religious language doesn’t need to be literal/factual to be spiritually fulfilling)
o Symbols can be temporary and change/lose meaning over time and God does not
o Can be taken and the meaning changed, e.g. The swastika and the hakenkreuz used by the Nazis.
What is Randall’s theory of symbolic language? What are the criticisms of this?
o Randall: own theory of symbolic language, similar to Tilich but he thinks it’s completely subjective. Religious language functions similarly to power of art, music and poetry in the way it affects us- it doesn’t point to something external. It arouses emotions, binds together communities, and evokes a human experience of the divine. More successful than Tilich, doesn’t depend on some mysterious power beyond the subjective mind.
- Like Tilich believes religious language should focus on human experience, dogmas and facts are secondary.
o Prior understanding of context of God necessary to understand the symbol
o Logical positivism: the idea that through symbolic language we connect our soul to a higher level of divine reality is not falsifiable, therefore not meaningful. Religion makes claims about reality, therefore is cognitive. Does Tilich rely too much on emotion to be meaningful?
Evaluation qus:
- How do the above approaches to religious language compare?
- Does the apophatic way enable effective understanding of theological discussion?
- Do Aquinas’ analogical approaches support effective expression of language about God?
- Is religious discourse comprehensible if religious language is understood as symbolic?
