Religious Language

Question 1

What are the key issues in the topic?

Answer 1

• How can finite language describe an infinite God?
• How can words accurately describe God?
• Words can be used univocally eg) a good God and a good dog but this anthropomorphizes God
• Words can be used equivocally but this doesn’t tell us anything about God

Question 2

What does univocally mean?

Answer 2

The word has the same meaning at all times eg) boy

Question 3

What is the cataphatic way / via positiva?

Answer 3

Using postive language to describe God’s attributes Eg) God is loving, powerful, just, wise etc

Question 4

What do believers of the via postiva / cataphatic way believe?

Answer 4

God has revealed himself through scripture, religious experience, sacraments, and creation

Question 5

What scholars are in the way of the Via positiva / cataphatic way?

Answer 5

St Francis, Aquinas, Loyola

Question 6

What is the via negativa / apophatic way?

Answer 6

Argues we cannot say anything postive about God because we cannot comprehend him so we must say what God is not

Question 7

What did Psuedo-Dionysius say?

Answer 7

God is “beyond assertion”

Question 8

What did Gregory of Nyssa say?

Answer 8

Spiritual life is a “mysticism of darkness” and at a point, a believer enters into the apophatic way of God’s ineffable and transcendent reality where God is beyond words and images.

Question 9

What did Meister Eckhart say?

Answer 9

We must find “light in the darkness” and true enlightenment only comes when we leave human language behind

Question 10

What did Moses Maimonides say?

Answer 10

“All we understand is the fact that He exists, that He is a being to who none of his creatures is similar” - he uses the example of describing a ship using only negative terms.

Question 11

How did Brian Davies criticise Maimonides?

Answer 11

He said that his example could easily be describing a wardrobe - leaves us with a limited understanding

Question 12

What are the strengths/weaknesses of the apophatic way / via negativa?

Answer 12

-Brian Davies said Maimonides’ example could easily be describing a wardrobe
- leaves us with a limited understanding
- Not how religious believers talk about God want positive assertions
- To strip God of description cuts existing ties eg) the bible
- To say what God is not implies the positives
+ prevents anthropomorphizing God, is more respectful and keeps God transcendent

Question 13

Who are the scholars in the way of the Via negativa / the apophatic way?

Answer 13

• Moses Maimonides
• Meister Eckhart
• Gregory of Nyssa
• Pseudo-Dionysius

Question 14

Who states the best way to talk about God is through analogy?

Answer 14

Aquinas

Question 15

What are Aquinas’ two types of analogy?

Answer 15

• The analogy of proportion- God’s attributes are much greater than ours Eg) 5-year-old pianist is good but cannot be compared with a concert pianist + Baron Von Hugel’s eg of a faithful dog being different to a faithful human
• The analogy of attribution - looking at creation to attribute it to God’s attributes Eg) a bull’s urine indicates if it’s healthy

-

Question 16

What are the strengths/weaknesses of analogy?

Answer 16

+ Hick - language allows us to make statements about God whilst retaining his mystery
+ John McQuarrie - “reassurance our talk isn’t empty”
+ Ramsey’s discourse situation - suggests analogy is like drawing polygons that eventually make up a circle and this allows us to see the bigger picture
+ Ramsey’s model and Qualifiers - suggests another way to use analogy is to add “most”, “best”, “supreme” and this is using language differently
+ avoids anthropomorphising God

• Don Scotus - analogy is too vague
• Assumes there are similarities between God and man
• Hick - the incarnation shows us about God so analogy is not needed
• Karl Barth - knowledge through revelation - completely against natural theology so the analogy is not a way of knowing God

Question 17

Who uses symbolic language to talk about God?

Answer 17

Paul Tillich

Question 18

What is the difference between a sign and a symbol?

Answer 18

A sign is something that points to something outside it’s self and a symbol participates in which it points to Eg) the American flag which connotes power and dignity or a piece of music or art

Question 19

What was Tillich’s quote?

Answer 19

“A symbol unlocks something within our soul and expresses something about the ultimate.”

Question 20

Why is religious language a symbol for Tillich?

Answer 20

As there religious symbols such as wine, bread the cross etc but also statements such as “God is good” participates in the ground of being (the reality of God). For Tillich the ground of being is the only non symbolic statement about God that can be made.

Question 21

What are the strengths/weaknesses of symbolic language?

Answer 21

• Hick questions what it means to participate in something
• symbols can be interpreted differently
  -Randall says symbols are non-cognitive and have no objective reality
  + doesn’t anthropomorphize God

Question 22

What is cognitive language?

Answer 22

A statement that is subject to being true or false

Question 23

What is non-cognitive language?

Answer 23

A statement that is not subject to being true or false and is emotive language Eg) boo or hurray

Question 24

Who came up with the verification principle?

Answer 24

The logical positivists/ Vienna circle

Question 25

What is the strong verification principle?

Answer 25

A statement is only meaningful if it can be verified by an actual experience or a tautology.

Question 26

What doesn't meet the strong verification principle?

Answer 26

Religious language as it is not verified by experience or a tautology. Therefore it is meaningless and discussion of God should be avoided.

Question 27

What strengths/weaknesses of the strong verification principle?

Answer 27

- it is too rigid as it does not allow for any statements about history - scientific laws become meaningless eg) can't test gravity is everywhere - Swinburne argued universal statements can't be verified eg) all ravens are black - statements about art are opinions and therefore meaningless + would have been supported by empiricist Hume

Question 28

Who adopted the weak verification principle?

Answer 28

AJ Ayer

Question 29

What is the weak verification principle?

Answer 29

For a statement to be meaningful it has to be a tautology or can be verified in principle which enables us to make statements about the past including statements about Jesus and the future of science. However, religion and art are still meaningless.

Question 30

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the weak verification principle?

Answer 30

- The verification principle itself can't be verified as it isn't a tautology and no experience can verify that empiricism is the only way to gain knowledge. - Swinburne used an example of toys coming to a life at night and hiding before anyone sees them - some things are true even if we can't verify them - John Hick suggested the principle of Eschatological verification using the example of 2 travellers on a road arguing whether it leads to the celestial city - they will only know the answer when they get to the end of the road - just as with God - therefore religious statements can be verified in principle and are meaningful - There is an assumption that only scientific statements are meaningful but DZ Phillips says that art and poetry should be in a different category

Question 31

Who thought that all language is part of their own language games?

Answer 31

Wittgenstein

Question 32

What did Wittgenstein say about language?

Answer 32

Words only have specific meanings inside their own language games or forms of life so you can't get outside a language game and ask a word's real meaning. Therefore there can be no judgement if one language game is better than another and cognitive/non-cognitive language goes out the window although inside a language game something can be cognitive/ non-cognitive)

Question 33

What are the strengths/weaknesses of language games?

Answer 33

+ Don Cupitt supported saying there is no objective reality of God and he only exists within a community of faith. + DZ Phillips agreed arguing a philosophers task is not to comment on the truth of religious statements but to clarify their meaning. -Peter Geach argues language games are circular - the word takes meaning from the game but the game takes meaning from the words in it. + religious and scientific statements are correctly distinguished - Beliefs we have are groundless and only have meaning inside games - believers won't like this - can't debate between games which are important