religious language Flashcards
(11 cards)
what is the via negativa
this refers to the apophatic way, religious thinkers believe that God was beyond finite human capability to understand and talking about God in human ways is disrespectful so we should describe him in terms of what he isnt. pseudo dionysuis argues we should use this to talk about God as it preserves the mystery of God
what is the cataphatic way
this is the via positiva, this uses positive words to describe God, this risks anthropormising him so we dont use it. they would rather say God is ineffable, invisible,unknowable. pseudo dynosis says God is beyond assertion
why does gregory of nyssa say we should use the apothatic way
he described the spiritual life as a mysticism darkness. there comes a point which a believer enters an outer darkness and into the apophatic way of Gods ineffable transcendent reality. at this point theres no words to describe the understanding of God
what does moses maimonadies say
he claimed God and humans were totally different that words used about God would be equivocal(mean something different). however we dont know exactly what words mean when talking about God as God is transcendent and beyond human comprehension so he says we should talk about God by saying what he is not. he claims if we want to describe a ship by saying what it isnt, within ten steps we will arrive at what a ship is. the same way talking about God using the negative gets us closer to understanding him
what is the A03 for this
B davies criticised maimonadies saying that you could just as easily end up with a wardrobe instead of a ship. we are no nearer to understanding what God is if we say what he isnt
religious believers seek positive knowledge of God and will only speak about him in a positive fashion.
the via negativa will leave us with a limited understanding of God as we only speak about what he isnt and not what he is, this can easily be avoided when understanding it in a equivocal way.
what is the analogy of attribution
Aquinas argues that theres some connection between creatures and the creator and so there is something that can be said about God using the analogy of attribution. if a bulls urine is healthy, the health is asosciated with the bull. in this way we can attribute goodness to God as his creations are good.
what is the analogy of proper proportion
Aquinas states when we talk about God being good it is more than a humans goodness as Gods goodness is proportionally much greater than ours
its like comparing the violin playing of your sister who is good for a seven year old with that of a professional who is proportionally much better. theologian baron van hugel argues the faithfulness of a human is proportionally more than that of a dog. similarly when we use human words to describe God it applies to God in amuch greater proportion as God is infinite
how is aquinas’ analogy successful
it avoids the pitfalls of univocal and equivocal language to counter the apophatic way. he manages to keep Gods mysterious image and doesnt bring him down to the level of humans
what is the A03 for these analogys
it avoids the problem of anthropormising God as he recognises’ Gods good is proportionally greater than humans
it preserves a degree of mystery as isnt exposing much about Gods nature
it doesnt limit our understanding like the apophatic way does.
how does tillich propose we talk about God
he began defining a symbol before applying it to how we talk about God, a sign points to something outside of itself. e.g. a road sign may point out to a bend in the road. a cross is a sign of christianity and this symbol participates in a religious belief so to be told you cant wear a cross would be deeply insulting because of the symbolic meaning
tillich develops this in his use of religious language, when believers talk about God or say God is love. not only are they pointing to the existence of a spiritual reality theyre also participating in it. tillich argues when we say God is love, God participates in this just as much as the believers who advocate it
religious language functions like an appreciation of the arts. tillich argues religious language brings out something from deep within and tries to say something about the ultimate reality. he calls this ultimate reality the ground of being rather than God and says ground of being is the only non symbolic statement that can be made about God
Tillich wants to use positive language that says something we can relate to about God whilst recognising he is far beyond any words humans can use. therefore he argues symbolic language is both affirmed and negated by that to which it points, e.g. God is love is asserting that God is love but also recognises the word love is inadequate and means far more than these human words can express.
what is the A03 for this
it preserves the mystery of God and the sense that God is beyond words so avoids anthropormism
it allows us to say something about God unlike the apophatic way so our knowledge isnt too limited
it is cognitive as it expressed something about the ultimate true reality
