Religious language - negative, analogical or symbolic Flashcards
(17 cards)
what is religous language
what is the apophatic way or via negative
a way of speaking about God
one problem of religous language is that if people are using normal vocabulary, as they only have words that apply to finite , imperfect things that belong in this world. if we speak of God as a judge or father these words make us think of human judges and human fathers - physical beings with limitations.
some writers have therefore argued that whatever normal language we use we are always going to make God too small and misrepresent him in a disrespectful way. therefore they have argued it is only possible to speak about god properly if we use negative terms.
believe if we say god is a king or a shepherd we might give people the complete wrong idea like that god has a body or is male or has faults even if we say God is love then we start making people think of human low with all of its flaws, jealousy, fluctuations and limits. soon as we use positive terms we start making inaccuarate statements that damage understanding.
pseudo- dionysius the areopagite
no one knows what this thinker is really called
writings were for a long time attributed to someone called dionysius who lived at the areopagus, but then it was realised that the writings did not fit the dates of dionysius and so he ended up with this strange name.
he was a mystic christian who spent a lot of time in deep contemplation
he argued that the via negative is the only way in which we can speak truthfully about God because he is beyond all human understanding and imagination
he was a follower of plato - believing in division of the physical body and soul
argued that since God is completely beyond our understanding, we cannot possibly talk about what God is. God is ‘beyond every assertion’, beyond language. therefore can only be spoken about in negative terms.
“there is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth – it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial.” – Pseudo-Dionysius.
Knowing God by knowing nothing. Trying to understand God is not just pointless but actually counterproductive because it separates us from God.
He clearly at least thinks that following the Via Negativa method and giving up on trying to understand what God is actually helps you become closer to God in some way.
” The more we climb, the more language falters”
moses maimonides
1135-1204
great jewish thinker
supporter of the via negativa
thought the best way to convey an accurate understanding of the nature of god was to explain what god is not. in this way he hoped people would move closer to an understanding of what god is without limiting him in their thoughts.
he used an example of a ship to show what he meant
- said by 10th description of a ship someone would have come to the correct notion of it through negative expressions
‘it is clear that this tenth person has almost arrived at the correct notion of a ship by the forgoing negative attributes…. in the same mannar you will come nearer to the knowledge and comprehension of god by negaive attributes’ - the guide for the perplexed
in buddhist texts, the via negatie is used in an attempt to convey central beliefs; the nature of nirvana and the nature of the buddha are topics that are notouriously difficult to describe.
the cataphatic way or via positivia, as a way of speaking about god
use of positive terms in order to convey meaning.
some thinkers (most notably aquinas) have argued that we cannot say anything positive that is literally true of God, because the use of ordinary human language automatically limits god. aquinas used the term via eminetia (the way of eminence) to show that what we say and know of god is only partial.
however aquinas did not completly follow the via negativia. he suggested in summa theologica that there could be a way of making positive claims about God as long as we understand that the words we use have an analogical rather than literal application. eg when people say god is listening to them they should remeber this is not literally true and according to christian belief god does not have physical ears and does not need people to make a sound when speaking to him. it is an analogy
whats the difference between analogical language and univocal and equivocal language
we use words for two different things in a way that is univocal - which means the same words are used in exactly the same way, for example when we talk of a bathmat or doormat
we use words for two different things that is equivocal - which means the same word is used in two completly different ways such as a dining table and a periodic table
analogical - same term is used, in not exactly the same sense , but in a similar or related sense. for example we might talk about a smooth floor and smooth wine. the wine is not smooth in the same way tge floor is but the word is used in a related way - it is the same kind of idea expressed, of a gliding finish and lack of roughness
aquinas on analogies
aquinas rejected using univocal language to speak of god because it makes god too small
he also rejected equivocal language (eg someone might say that god is good but that his goodness is completly different from any goodness we know) because it is not helpful in communicating about god
he developed the doctrine of analogical language as a kind of middle path between the 2
he divided analogies into 2 main types
Analogy of attribution - where there is a casual relationship between two things being described. aquinas used the example of a bulls urine - we call it ‘healthy’ because it is caused by and can be attributed to, the health of the bull.
aquinas thought it was to remember that when we are talking of god we are using the analogy of attribution - eg when we say god is loving we should realise the casual relationship in that god not only displays love but is the cause of all love.
analogy of proportionality - where the words relate to objects that are different in proportion. eg a clever toddler vs a clever scientist. in religous terms aquinas thought we can use like loving to describe god but we have to recognise that gods love are on a infinitely vaster scale than our own.
– john hick in his book ‘philosophy of religion’ gives example to illustrate this analogy - ‘we sometimes say of a pet dog that it is faithfu; and we may also describe a man as faithful….we are not using faithfully univocally. we are using it analogically’
ian ramsey
a 20th centruy version of the idea of speaking of god analogically comes from ian ramsey
in his book ‘religous language’ he tried to explain the way in which religous language could usefully describe god by using the terms ‘models’ and ‘qualifiers’
according to him we can use ‘models’ when we speak of god with words such as ‘righteous’ or ‘loving’ - words we understand however to not limit god we also need to use ‘qualifiers’ - these are adjectives and verbs like ‘everlasting’ or ‘perfectly’. this allows us to talk positively about god without limiting him
using symbols to talk about god
analogy is one way of understanding how religous language might be used to say positive things about god. another way is through the use of symbols
People often use language symbolically when talking about god - god ‘listened’ to me even tho they believe he has no body and therefore no ears.
also use symbols to describe there relationship with God - ‘god is my shepherd’
Paul tillichs view of religous language as entirely symbolic
German- american theologian and philosopher most noted for his books ‘the courage to be’ 1952 and ‘systematic theology’ 1951-63. he was a christian extentialist
he believed that all religous language is symbolic rather than literal and therfore it cannot be subjected to tests in order to assess its meaningfulness
Literal meaning is when words refer to objects or things. Such words are like signs. They are arbitrary symbols that we have created to refer to things. Religious language cannot have literal meaning as it cannot refer to God, since God is beyond our understanding.
Tillich’s symbolic approach to religious language claims that religious language doesn’t try to refer to God but instead connects our minds to God.
Tillich uses the illustration of a national flag. It isn’t a random sign pointing to a country. It is part of what it points to. It participates in the power and dignity of a nation. Seeing a flag mentally connects a citizen to their country.
Similarly, the function of religious symbols is to spiritually connect people to the religious dimension of reality.
The meaning of religious language is the spiritual connection to God it inspires through symbolic participation in the being of God.
when a Christian looks at a crucifix. It means something to them. A crucifix is not a word, but it still inspires meaning in the mind of a person who sees it. Tillich thinks religious language functions like that. When a person hears religious language, e.g. “God be with you”, the effect on their mind is just like the effect of seeing a crucifix. The meaning they feel is a result of the words functioning symbolically.
Tillich thought symbolic language was like a poetry or a piece of art. It can offer a new view of life or a new meaning to life, but is hard to explain to people who haven’t experienced it. Religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards and connecting us to the ultimate reality.
The vision of God which he called the ‘ground of being’. We have come to know this through symbols.
The main strength of his theory is that it side-steps the meaning-issue of our human inability to understand God.
does the apophatic way provide an effective method for theological discussion?
advantages -
for some people the via negative is the best way of attempting to communicate ideas about god because it is a way of recognising that we have to go beyond our normal everyday experiences and language in order to encounter God. it does not place a limit on God by giving a point of referance that is within the physical world.
also means we can say something about god or reality, which is literally true and doesnt need interpreting. unlike symbolism or analogy the via negative applies equally well in different cultures and periods of history
disadvantages-
if we speak of god only negatively, then it is still not very easy for the person who has no experience of god to know what we mean. to say that white is ‘the opposite of black’ does not give much help to someone who has no concept of white. god cannot be reached by a process pf elimination if he is outside our experience
brian davis criticises maimonides
‘only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is and if one can only say what god is not, one cannot understand him at all’
and says that in maimonides notion of a ship that ‘he could equally well be thinking of a wardrobe or coffin’
another objection to maimonides is that when we try to arrive at something by a process of elimintation, we need to know before we start what the different possibilities are so that we can know what we have left when the alternatives have been crossed. therefore the via negative might not work for someone who begins by knowing nothing of god
many holy scriptures make positive statements about god - bible makes claims that god is a king, judge, shepherd so if the bible comes from god this would suggest that you can make positive claims
anslem in the ontologicsl argument described god in both negative and positive - ‘that than which nothing greater can be concieved’
anthony flew in his paper ‘theology and falsification’ argued that if we try to explain god by saying that he is invisible, soundless, incorpeal ect there is very little difference between our definition of god and our definition of nothingness.
does aquinas’ analogical approaches support effective expression of language about God
some say its unhelpful because we have to translate the analogies into univocal language before they mean anything
strengths and weaknesses of Via Negativa (apophatic way)
The main strength of the Via Negativa approach is that it is true to God’s transcendence and otherness. Almost all theologians agree on God’s transcendence. Otto called God “wholly other”, meaning radically different to anything else we experience or understand. Augustine comments that whatever we can comprehend is not God.
This leads to a further strength in helping us to understand the Bible and its descriptions of God’s immanence. Maimodenies argued that seemingly positive descriptions of God in the Bible should be interpreted as referring to God’s immanence, such as God’s actions in the world.
Via Negativa is thus often defended by distinguishing between:
God’s transcendence: God’s actual but unknowable being which can only be described negatively.
God’s immanence: God’s actions in the physical world which can be described positively
weaknesses -
There are other descriptions of God as having a ‘face’ or ‘walking’ in the garden of Eden. These can be dismissed as metaphorical language, or perhaps just referring to God’s immanent actions.
However, there are Bible passages which seem to describe God’s nature itself that seem difficult for Maimodenies’ argument to explain.
In the Gospel of John God is described positively: “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).
So, the Bible seems to suggest that via posititiva language about God is valid. The Via Negativa approach appears to conflict with the religious language of the Bible.
however Describing God as love could simply refer to God’s loving actions in the world.
Augustine is not straightforwardly a proponent of Via Negativa, but he agrees with many of its core principles. He accepts that the Bible often contains ‘human expressions’ because that is all we are capable of understanding.
Brian Davies criticises Maimodenies.
- He points out that negative language only allows us to actually gain knowledge in “special cases”, such as when we know exactly what possibilities there are for a thing. E.g., if we know a person is not left-handed and not ambidextrous, then we can know they are right-handed.
However, most cases (including God) are not like that.
- “Such a person could equally well be thinking of a wardrobe or a coffin’
strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ theory of analogy (via positive / cataphatic way)
A strength of Aquinas’ theory of analogy is its basis in his natural theology. Aquinas accepted that human reason could never know or understand God’s infinite divine nature. However, he argued that human reason can gain lesser knowledge of God, including God’s nature by analogy, through the analogies of attribution and proportion. This makes Aquinas a proponent of natural theology through reason, which he claimed could support faith in God.
Weakness: Natural theology places a dangerous overreliance on human reason. Karl Barth was influenced by Augustine, who claimed that after the Fall our ability to reason become corrupted by original sin.
Barth’s argument is that is therefore dangerous to rely on human reason to know anything of God, including God’s morality.
“the finite has no capacity for the infinite” – Karl Barth.
Our finite minds cannot grasp God’s infinite being. Whatever humans discover through reason is not divine, so to think it is divine is idolatry – believing earthly things are God. Only faith in God’s revelation in the bible is valid.
Barth’s argument fails because it does not address Aquinas’ point that our reason is not always corrupted and original sin has not destroyed our natural orientation towards the good. Original sin can at most diminish our inclination towards goodness by creating a habit of acting against it. Sometimes, with God’s grace, our reason can discover knowledge of God. The analogy of attribution and proportion are examples of the valid use of human reasoning to figure out what we can and can not meaningfully say about God. -
however
Barth still seems correct that being corrupted by original sin makes our reasoning about God’s existence and morality also corrupted. The bad in our nature unfortunately means we cannot rely on the good.
Humanity’s belief that it has the ability to know anything of God is the same arrogance that led Adam and Eve to disobey God.
Strength: Aquinas’ theory of analogy cleverly manages to avoid the problems of standard cataphatic language by finding a middle ground between them. -
Univocal language fails because we are not the same as God and equivocal language fails because we are not completely different. The truth does seem to be in the middle – that we are like God, that God has qualities analogous to ours but proportionally greater.
This is also biblically supported. Genesis says we are made in God’s ‘image and likeness’, suggesting a likeness between us and God.
Brummer objects that the analogy of proportion fails. It claims that a being has a quality to a certain degree relative to its nature. Human love is to human nature like divine love is to divine nature.
However, Brummer points out that we do not know God’s nature, so we cannot know the way in which God is loving. We are merely saying that God is not loving in the way humans are loving, but we cannot say in what way God is loving.
“The analogy of proportionality thus takes us no further than a negative theology” – Brummer
The analogy of attribution is meant to deal with this issue. If we can say that God’s love, whatever it is, is analogous to human love. We can then further add that God has love proportional to his nature.
However, Brummer also criticises the analogy of attribution. God is the source of everything. Attribution can tell us that God is the source of human qualities, but it cannot tell us in what way God has those qualities. Since humans are loving, we can attribute to God love to God. However, we are merely saying that God is the source of love. Analogy does not enable us to say in what way God is loving.
Brummer’s objection is unsuccessful because it misunderstands Aquinas’ approach.
- Aquinas would accept Brummer’s point, that analogy does not enable us to know or say what God’s qualities actually are.
- Aquinas’ goal is to say what God’s qualities are like. To assert that there is a likeness between God’s qualities and ours.
Brummer’s objection is successful because analogies are only meaningful if we know both things being analogised. For example, the analogy that ‘electricity behaves like water’ is meaningful because we know what both electricity and water are and the qualities they share (flow, current and power), and do not share (danger, state of matter). The problem is, in the case of God, we clearly do not have the required knowledge for any analogy with God to be meaningful nor for us to know their accuracy.
strengths and weaknesses of Tillich’s symbolic approach
Strength: Tillich’s theory successfully captures the spiritual side of religious language
- Tillich seems more successful than other approaches in capturing how everyday Christian language actually functions, especially its relation to spiritual experience. When a Christian looks at a crucifix or prays, they can have deep spiritual feelings. This is often the most important thing to them. Tillich’s theory seems successful because the most important element of religious language is the spiritual feelings it evokes, not cold factual descriptive beliefs.
Weakness: William Alston objects that religious language must involve facts
- Alston argues that important Christian doctrines like heaven and hell have to be taken as factual, not as symbolic. He claims “there is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or false.” Religion religion is concerned with objective factual things such as our salvation and afterlife. In that case, religious language cannot merely be symbolic. John Hick makes a similar point, adding that philosophical language about God, such as God being non-dependent (necessary) is not symbolic.
Religion is primarily a human impulse towards something higher than the limits of our scientific or philosophical reasoning. - Tillich is therefore right to refocus Christianity towards the spiritual aspect of human life. It is about surrendering to our need for spiritual fulfilment. Religious language doesn’t need to be literal/factual to be spiritually fulfilling
Alston and Hick’s critique is successful because it shows that Tillich goes too far in reducing almost all religious language to symbols. Religious language is only sometimes symbolic. Factual belief in heaven and hell is just as important to Christian believers as the spiritual experience gained from using religious symbolic language. Tillich’s approach fails to capture the cognitive element of religious language.
strength - Tillich seems to solve the difficulty of meaningfully talking about a God that is beyond our understanding. Religious language functions as a sort of spiritual or religious experience which connects human souls to God. We don’t need to understand God to be connected to God.
Weakness: The issue of the subjectivity and vagueness of ‘participation’.
Hick argues that Tillich’s flag illustration does not adequately explain how participation works.
Firstly it isn’t clear how a flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation. Secondly, it’s not clear whether religious symbols are supposed to participate in the ground of being (God) in the same way.
Finally, it is a traditional religious doctrine that there is a connection between God and nature. In some sense the world is already thought to participate in God already. So, it’s not clear how the way that symbols participate in the being of God is different to the way that everything else already does.
“Unfortunately Tillich does not fully define or clarify this central notion of participation … Does this symbol participate in Being-itself in the same sense as that in which a flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation?”
Hick’s issue can be developed into a boarder concern about the subjectivity of symbols. Participation and connection is too vague which suggests it is subjective. Symbolic meaning could merely be in our minds. Symbols might not connect us to anything beyond or above ourselves.
- This is the problem with separating religious meaning from factual meaning and instead connecting it to this vague idea of spiritual connection to the ‘ground of being’. Tillich reduces God and religion to human feelings.
objection is unsuccessful because Tillich doesn’t think his theory makes religious language completely subjective, because it is connected to the objective. He says:
- “The term ‘ultimate concern’ united the subjective and the objective side of the act of faith.” – Tillich.
- This critique of Tillich is successful. Spiritual experiences where a person loses their sense of subjective self are possible
Randalls theory of symbolic language
John Randall saw religious language as non-cognitive symbols that represent themselves and provoke a unique, emotional response in the user or hearer.
Strength: Randall’s theory is more successful than Tillich’s because Randall accepts that symbols are completely subjective and that symbolic language is non-cognitive.
Randall views symbols as completely subjective in our mind and thus non-cognitive. Tillich is stuck with the perhaps impossible difficulty of explaining how he could possibly know that symbolic language has the spiritual power he thinks it does. Arguably by accepting that symbols are completely subjective and don’t have some mysterious power extending beyond our subjective minds, Randall’s theory is more successful while still retaining the strengths of Tillich’s, that it accurately captures most religious meaning in the lives and experiences of Christians.
Randall makes an analogy between the power of music, art and poetry to affect us, arguing that religious language functions similarly.
