Religious Language One Flashcards
1
Q
agnosticism
A
the view that there is insufficient evidence for God, or the view that God cannot be known
2
Q
truth claim
A
a statement that asserts something is factually true
not all truth claims are true
3
Q
apophatic way
A
via negativa
a way of speaking about God and theological ideas using only terms that say what God is not
e.g he is incorporeal - doesn’t have a body
emphasise the difference between God and humanity
4
Q
cataphatic way
A
via positiva
a range of ways of speaking about God and theological ideas using only terms that say what God is
using analogy and symbol
5
Q
univocal language
A
words that mean the same things when used in different contexts
6
Q
equivocal language
A
words that mean different things when used in different contexts
7
Q
what do many agnostic thinkers say about discussing God
A
- God is something we cannot know nor speak about
- God unavailable to reason, experiment, testing
- no words in human vocabulary can communicate anything about God
- thus, no point in discussing God
- we cannot possibly know if what we are saying is true
- even atheist’s engage in discussion whereas agnostic thinkers don’t
8
Q
what are agnostic thinkers doing when they claim that talk of God or anything supernatural is plain nonsense etc.
A
they themselves are making truth claims
9
Q
how did Islam try to communicate the nature of God
A
- 99 names for Allah like the gracious or the merciful
10
Q
what do theists also try to communicate about as well as the nature of God
A
- other aspects of belief outside everyday experience
- afterlife, state of enlightenment, nature of the soul
11
Q
what is an issue for philosophers of religion
A
whether religious language can communicate ideas effectively even when these are ideas that go way beyond our normal experiences in everyday life
- perhaps language of human, finite, limited world is inadequate
or - perhaps there are ways in which at least some understanding of God can be communicated
12
Q
why is it problematic to use our normal vocabulary to speak of God as ‘a father’ e.g.
A
- words that apply only to finite imperfect things that belong in this world
- it makes us think of human fathers, putting pictures in our minds of physical beings with limitations even if by human standards they are exceptionally good fathers
- everyone has a different experience of fathers
13
Q
why is the apophatic way beneficial
A
- using normal language will always make God too small and misrepresent him in a damaging and disrespectful way
- thus we should deny that we can say anything about God at all
14
Q
what are statements made in the apophatic way
A
plain statements of fact
15
Q
what is wrong with saying God is love or God is a shepherd
A
- Shepherd - make us think he is male with a body
- God is love - we only know human love with its jealousies, flaws and fluctuations
- it is wrong to try and apply these same concepts to God
16
Q
apophatic way and God’s mysteries
A
- people who support (-) way say better to accept the mysteries of God than try to pin God down using flawed concepts
- matches with a deep religious instinct - e.g. in Islam God is never portrayed visually
17
Q
discuss Pseudo-Dionysius
A
- Christian thinker - 6th century
- (-) way only way to speak truthfully about God as he is beyond all human understanding/imagination
- counter productive to speak as if God can be perceived by the senses or as if we can reach God through reason
- only through recognition of the limits of humanity that spiritual progress can be made
18
Q
how did Pseudo-Dionysius support the ideas of Plato
A
- need for soul to be unified with God going beyond the realms of sense perception and rationality entering obscurity and a cloud of unknowing from which God can be approached
- believed in division between body and soul
- soul’s search for God can be held back by the demands of the body and the mind’s desire for complete understanding
- thus we can’t talk about God in a (+) way
19
Q
what did Pseudo Dionysius think about those genuinely seeking God
A
- they should put away their need to have answers to everything
- stop trying to use logic and arguments
- instead allow God to speak to them in stillness accepting he will remain a mystery
- until they accept this they miss the point and end up with a God that is too small
20
Q
anon - ‘the cloud of unknowing quote’
A
you may not see Him clearly by the light of understanding in your reason for if you ever shall feel him or see him it is right always to be in this cloud in this darkness
21
Q
who is Pseudo-Dionysius’ ideas about mystery of God similar to
A
- William James
- same awareness of the ineffable nature of God
22
Q
who was Moses Maimonides
A
- adopted via negativa
- medieval Jewish Philosopher
- warns continuously of the dangers of anthropomorphising God in his works
- warns against literal interpretations of such phrases like ‘God’s right hand’
23
Q
what is anthropomorphising God
A
giving human characteristics to something not human - makes God seem smaller than he is - humanity is flawed but God is perfect
24
Q
what does Moses Maimonides say about is making comparisons with God because of who we are
A
“because man’s distinction lies in having something which no other earthly creature possessed, intellectual perception this has been compared though only apparently not as a matter of truth to the Divine perception which requires no bodily organ”
“because of the divine intellect man has been given he is is said to be in the image and likeness of the Almighty. But we should not have the idea that the Supreme Being is corporeal”
25
what did Aquinas say about via negativa
- he was not an exponent of it but was sympathetic to its proponents and the significance of their insights
- he did think that the essence of God was infinitely far beyond human understanding/language but didn't think nothing could be done about this
- via negativa is a prelude to understanding God
- to say that God is not ignorant or not limited by time surely still tells us something even if we do not know what
- as long as we remember its analogy we can say whatever
26
what is the criticism of via negative with reference to it being unhelpful or negligible
- any understanding gleaned through this approach is negligible
- saying God is not a bicycle gives us no deep insight into the nature of God
- though proponents would argue that even to make a (-) statement implies some awareness of what is being denied
27
what was W.R Inge concerned about with reference to the apophatic way
- that to deny God his descriptions was to lead to an 'annihilation' of both God and humanity
- if we strip God of his descriptions simply because our descriptions are limited and based on finite human experience we are in danger of losing the essential link between God and the world
28
what does Christian orthodoxy insist on and how is this a criticism of the via negativa
- on God's involvement in the world and a God who loved it that he sacrificed his son for it
- if we can say nothing about God a danger is not simply that we cannot think significantly about God but that we will not think about him at all
- the only tool we have is our language we have to use it or we won't be able to think about God as our thoughts are formed in words
29
what did C.K. Chesterton and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin speak of
- the 'divinisation of matter'
| - finding God through our material existence was all part of his plan for salvation
30
what is the divinisation of matter
that the world is how God interacts with us - we can only experience him through our sense experience in this world hence why Jesus came here
31
what did Teilhard think about how we can speak of God
(he was a critic of via negativa)
- if we can talk about God's relationship with material things then we are inevitably saying something positive however limited that might be
- e.g. it makes sense to say someone knows the love of God through the love she experiences in her marriage because even human love is mysterious and never fully understood
- people question 'why did she choose me e.g.'
- neither person in the marriage can answer that question in full, as with talking about God we can never properly answer, but that does not mean that nothing can be said or expressed
- we still express human love even if we don't fully understand it
32
how does via negativa run the risk of denying God's existence all together
if you can only describe God in negative ways it leaves open the question of what God actually is and if it cannot clearly be stated what is been talked about then how can anyone be sure there is something to be talked about at all
- if god is not hurtful, in time etc... is God perhaps not anything
33
why does marriage been a sacrament help us understand God's love
- it is a physical symbol that gives us a window into the love God has
- marriage between a man and a woman mirrors God's love
- thus as a criticism of via negativa it is possible to use human experiences to say something about and help us understand God
34
how did Aquinas end his career and how did this show support for the via negativa way in Mark Vernon's article face to faith
- he put down his pen and said 'all I have written seems like straw'
- his goal had been to understand God and he had made many verbal attempts on the summit
- his efforts had produced wonderful reflections but he reached the point where he has been able to appreciate the most profound truth - the peak lies beyond
- God is unknown
- his silence was not a rejection but the culmination of his work
35
what did Vernon think it was a mistake to assume about Aquinas
- it is easy to sideline how radically agnostic Aquinas was even as a man of faith
- Aquinas thought even if the existence of God cannot be asserted, neither can God's nonexistence
- that by saying God is the unmoved mover Aquinas thinks this shows god's existence
- the aim of the proofs is to show incapable reason is of grasping God.
- that is its value, the throw us beyond anything that can be said to God
36
why is it important to remember how unknown God is (Vernon article)
- believers seem to forget this
- consider the kind of evangelical religiosity in which worship ceases to be an encounter with the mystery of God and becomes instead a feelgood experience, a time for sharing with a deity who is so well known that you can even ask him with help parking the car at the supermarket
- Kierkegaard quipped if faith would turn water into wine this turns wine into water
- it takes away the special mystery of God
37
what is the socratic principle
reason is the key to wisdom not because it shares all understanding but because it exposes understanding's limits
38
what should be immediately noted about the cataphatic way
- it does not follow that we are therefore able to be precise in our own language about God
- Aquinas argued we cannot say anything positive that is literally true of God because the ordinary human language automatically limits God placing his attributes within our experience and understanding
- but it can still be (+)ly indicative
39
why might we be able to say something positive about God
- if we are children of God and made by him in some way surely we have some understanding of him
- he literally 'blew' life into Adam
40
what is via eminentiae
- the way of eminence
- used by Aquinas to show that what we say and know of God is only partial
- love of God e.g. is eminent
- our own love and the love we receive is partial and flawed but God's love is the prime example of love
41
what did Aquinas suggest in Summa Theologica (Doctrine of analogy)
- there could be a way of making (+) claims about God as long as we understand that the words we use have an analogical rather than a literal application.
- known as his Doctrine of Analogy
- he is addressing the same issues that created such problems for thinks like Psuedo-Dionysius and Maimondies
42
discuss how you can't fully describe someone
- saying my best friend has blonde hair does not capture her fully as I am aware there is a convention of the words in that blonde covers a multitude of shades
- i am communicating some idea of what she looks like not the whole reality i picture in my mind
- the phrase will create a pic in your mind but it will not be the same as the one I have based on direct acquaintance
- so how can we accurately describe God
43
what two points does Aquinas attempt to hold together
- we are already using analogy when we make positive claims
- human language is indeed inadequate to express the divine but also that we do not have to assume that it is saying nothing
44
what are the three different types of significant language Aquinas argued there are
- univocal
- equivocal
- analogical
45
what did Aquinas argue univocal language is
- when a word or phrase is used in the same way in two different sentences for example a bath mat and a door mat
46
what did Aquinas argue equivocal language is
- using the same word in completely different ways such as a fruit bat and a cricket bat
- periodic table and a dining table
- in different contexts the word has an entirely different meaning so knowing what a dining table is would be of no help at all in gaining an understanding of the periodic table
47
what did Aquinas argue analogical language is
- when the same term is used in not exactly the same sense but in a similar or related one
- e.g. we might talk about a smooth wine and a smooth floor but the wine is not smooth in the same way the floor is
- the word is used in a related way
- its when the same idea is been expressed - a lack of roughness
- like connotations to gain greater insights
48
why did Aquinas reject univocal and equivocal language
- univocal is unsophisticated to speak of God as it makes him too small and does sufficiently convey the greatness/mystery of God
- rejected equivocal because its unhelpful to say God is good but in a way completely different to goodness we know
49
why does Aquinas accept analogical language and develop his doctrine of it
- its a middle path between univocal and equivocal
- when we speak religiously we do mean something if we say God is love
- there is something to be said because there is enough in human behaviour to transfer some of the meaning to God without either emptying the human concept entirely or saying that to speak of God as loving has no meaning
50
what are the two types of analogy that Aquinas speaks of
analogy of attribution and proportion
51
what is analogy of attribution based on
- based on the belief that God is the creator of the universe and everything comes from him
- creation is not accidental but based on God's will
- if the world is the product of God as a sentient being there is something in common between that which is made and the maker
52
what is analogy of attribution as a concept
- even if we know nothing about the artist we can deduce something about him from his work
- e.g. if there is beauty in nature, then there is reason to believe there is beauty in God
- but this is limited and God is not necessarily like his creation
- it identifies a casual relationship between the two things been described
- looking at a bull's urine, an expert can decide whether the bull is healthy from that without following that a bull is just like a puddle of urine
- casual relationship - God does not just display love but is the cause of all love
- Aquinas made the distinction about God being good in his essence whereas everything else is good because it participates in the essence of God.
53
what is Aquinas' analogy of proportion based on
- the notion that if something is true of a given person then it is possible to be more or less true of another
- where the words relate to objects that are different in proportion
- we might speak of a clever scientist and a clever toddler but the words are used in proportion to their specific comparison - the toddler is clever only in comparison to other toddlers
- thus we can use terms such as loving to speak of God as long as we realise in comparison to us God's love is of a far greater proportion
- we speak of God's love there is enough in common with human love that permits us to use that term
54
how does Hick talk about Aquinas' analogy of proportion
In his book 'Philosophy of Religion'
- we call a pet dog faithful and may also describe a man as faithful
- we are not using the word faith equivocally because there is similarity in this behaviour of a dog and the human understanding of the word
- but there is also an immense difference in the quality of dog and a man's attitude - the man's is superior
- thus we are not using faith univocally either
- but rather we use it analogically to indicate the level of the dog's consciousness has a quality that corresponds to what at the human level we call faithfulness.
55
what is the purpose of the doctrine of analogy
- not to tell us precisely what the terms we are using about God actually mean because we cannot know
- but it permits us to be able to say something (+) even if restricted
- it is a way to frame something in our terms to give us a measure of understanding
56
what is Aquinas careful of and why
insistent on awareness of what we are doing when we talk about God to say that we cannot talk about him exactly
we can talk (+) but limited
because of the incomprehensibility of God
57
discuss John MacQuarrie as an advocate of Aquinas
"the way of analogy is the one that has the most (+) content"
"it is not a literal way of talking about God and yet it seems to give us assurance that our talk is not just empty"
"Analogy makes possible that language of scripture and liturgy is at the heart of Christian religion"
58
what is MacQuarrie conscious of even as an advocate of Aquinas' doctrine of analogy
- MacQuarrie is very concious of the need not to claim more for analogy than it can give us
- it can only give is a very dim sense of the (+) things that might be made about God - nothing more can be promised
59
what concept did Ian Ramsey come up with to help explain analogy
Models and Qualifiers
| - he explored these in his book religious lanaguage
60
what is Ramsey's concept of 'models' and 'qualifiers'
- we use models to speak of god like loving or good
- we understand these words because we have reference point in our own human experience of them
- however to ensure we don't limit God/we recognise his attributes are different to ours we must use qualifiers also
- qualifiers are words like everlasting or perfectly
- we can anchor our ideas in our own experience/understanding and then show God is different from us proportionally
- we will never exactly understand God because qualifiers like perfectly are beyond our imagination but this concept helps us speak about God (+) without limiting him or speaking incomprehensibly
61
how did Brummer criticise the cataphatic way specifically with reference to Aquinas' analogy of proportion
- "God's nature is not accessible to us nor thus is the way in which he is wise"
- "in using the analogy of proportion we are saying no more than that God is not wise in the same way a human person is wise and are still unable to say positively in what sense God is in fact wise and thus it takes us no further than the apophatic way"
- analogy gives the appearance of saying something significant about God but we remain as ignorant as we were before we began
62
how did Brummer criticise the cataphatic way specifically with reference to Aquinas' analogy of attribution
- thinks its worse than proportion
- we have no ability to determine what we might attribute to God because he is so unknown to us
- "it seems to leave us free to call God warm, multi-coloured and heavy because as the creator of all things he is the source of all those things"
- "we could add the limitation not all terms are to be applied to God in this way, only the terms which apply to his nature. but then we would have to know God's nature and we don't"
- we are making assumptions we are not entitled to make because we lack the necessary knowledge to speak with any authority
63
how can we reconcile via negativa and via positiva to argue we perhaps need a more balanced approach of both ways
- (-) stands as a constant reminder to not anthropomorphise God; (+) tells us that if we are to say anything at all that utterance needs content however tentative to be worthwhile
- both are nothing more than a mere human attempt to capture that extends beyond our experience and language which is always based on that human experience
- each can and should be understood in terms of their limitations
64
what is a random positive about via negativa
- (-) important in all religions of the world - Eastern Meditative practices strive to go beyond the limitations of human understanding and (-) reminds us of the impossibility of capturing the divine in our terms
- but it might give us too little
- even if the (-) falls a little short it is a valuable reminder that when we speak of God we are not truly describing him but providing ourselves with a means of understanding
- even if we can speak with (+) we must always be conscious of the limits of our language
65
what are symbol and analogy part of
the cataphatic way - they say what God is
66
what is all language
symbolic
- we use words to stand for other things in the sense of been figurative or used metaphorically
- people get what we mean when we say 'I'm dying for a cup of coffee'
67
what does using religious language symbolically avoid
- it is a way in which (+) claims can be made about God without making him seem to small
68
how do religious believer's use language symbolically to describe their relationship with God
- they might say God 'listened to their prayers' even though God is incorporeal
- it helps to create short cuts and most people understand
- but if it is not clear whether a phrase is meant as a symbolic metaphor it can become problematic
69
why might religious believers use symbols
- to describe their relationship with and God in general
- use them instead of language to convey meaning that cannot readily be put into words
- to evoke particular feelings
- to identify themselves as members of a particular group of believers so they can be easily recognised by others
70
give an example of how religious believers might use symbols
- alpha and omega from the Greek alphabet - AΩ
- the first and last letter from the Greek alphabet to convey the idea that Jesus is at the beginning and end of everything
- pascal candles symbolise passion
71
who was Tillich and what did he argue
- 20th century philosopher/theologian who is famously associate with the use of symbols to describe God
- he argued that religious language is symbolic - religious symbols communicate the most significant beliefs and values of human beings
72
what does Tillich claim symbols and symbolic language allow
- enable us to open up deeper levels of reality that would otherwise remain closed to us
- if we were just stuck with literal language then we would not understand the religious or spiritual language world around us
- through the use of symbolic language we are able to express the special nature and qualities of faith and religious belief
- a symbol is a key which unlocks our souls to a deeper dimension of reality; our souls in turn connect with this deeper dimension and are given a new vision of perspective on life
73
what does Tillich say about the difference between a sign and a symbol
- a sign points to something beyond itself
- a symbol also points to something beyond itself but it also participates in the reality and power to which it points
- a flag is a symbol because it participates in the power of the nation for which is stands and symbolises
74
who was Tillich influenced by
- Otto who claimed that the root of religion was the experience of being in the presence of the numinous (divinity) or holy
- Tillich developed this idea by claiming that symbolic language opens up new aspects of reality and of the soul which Otto described earlier as a numinous experience
75
discuss one of the problems with symbol with reference to the tabernacle candle
- it doesn't carry meaning for all
- in every Catholic Church there is a candle near the tabernacle that symbolises the presence of God
- however this symbol does not resonate with non-Catholics, it's just a candle
76
discuss how God, in Tillich's thinking, is the ground of being
- God is the basis of all that exists and also the meaning behind all that exists
- Tillich argues the ground of being thus must be the ultimate concern of people; material possessions and ideas cannot replace God
- the ground of being cannot be comprehended or known in a personal way, but is known through symbols
- symbols include major theological ideas like sacrifice and atonement
77
where do symbols arise
- in the collective unconsciousness of people
| - symbols connect with a deeper reality which we are all part of even if it is out of our conscious awareness
78
discuss the ability for symbols to lose meaning
- once they lose meaning for members of a culture the power of the symbol will die
- you cannot destroy a symbol though - dictators clearly struggled to destroy religious symbols - often the wearing of a symbol becomes a sign of resistance
- symbols do lose their meaning or can be reinterpreted to mean something different
- the Hindu symbol of the Swastika was adopted by the Nazi party in Germany and it is not associated with Nazis not Hindus in Western European cultures
79
what is the problem with Tillich's symbols with reference to analogy
- the obvious question is whether we are any further forwards than with analogy
- symbolic language theories tell us what the terms do, not what they mean- that is no more or less than what analogy does
80
what is a positive of Tillich's symbols
by stressing the symbolic nature of religious language, Tillich reminds us starkly of the danger of anthropomorphising God just as an analogy does, but it doesn't necessarily do anything more than analogy
81
discuss the criticism of symbols in terms of their different interpretations and give a key example
- they can be interpreted differently by different people
- Genesis is seen as literally by some, symbolic by others and as entirely meaningless by many
- some see it as historical fact
82
discuss the criticism of symbols in terms of participation
- how can a symbol participate in something
- some philosophers have suggested that it is not entirely clear what participating in a symbol means and Tillich is vague about how a symbol participates in the power of the things that it points to
- how does a flag participate in the power and dignity of a nation
- Tillich could mean its capacity to influence people's thoughts and actions - like a feeling of pride or revulsion
- though the burning of a flag as an act of hatred towards a country hardly diminishes the power of that country
83
what would many Christians argue rather than thinking that all religious language is symbolic
- instead they would argue that statements such as God is good etc... have a meaning that's not just symbolic
- also many religious people take stories from their religious tradition literally like Genesis - true in some sense as well as communicating beliefs in a symbolic way
84
what happens if we see religious language as only symbolic
- it seems to deprive it of its substance and the words of prophets and saints would teach us very little about who God is or how to follow a Christian life
- an expression like God is love points to a deeper reality but in itself is emptied of substantive content if we see this as merely symbolic
85
who was J.H. Randall
An American philosopher whose principal work was on Aristotle, humanist thought and philosophy of religion
86
what most people consider Tillich's use of symbols to be in terms of cognitive
cognitive
- and he appears to use them in that way
- it is theoretically possible to ask whether they are true or false
- Tillich believed in God as the ground of being - the basis of reality on which all else rests
- hence however problematic they might be for others for Tillich, religious symbols represent truths
- as a result we may properly ask whether what is offered as true is actually true
- to do this is to engage in cognitive discourse
87
what did Randall offer with regards to Tillich's cognitive use of symbols
- he offered a non-cognitive analysis
- he argues that religious symbols are both non-cog and non-representative
- this means it makes no sense to ask whether they are true or not
- Randall argues religion is a human activity which contributes to human culture it speaks to us in a special way
88
discuss Randall's example of music to communicate his point about the truth of religion
- music speaks to us in a way that can't be translated into anything else
- touches parts of our being that nothing else can and awaken emotions other things can't
- in one way it expresses nothing beyond itself - it occupies its own world evoking its own feelings
- it tells us no truths about the nature of things but works within its own musical language
- religion is the same for Randall
- arouses special feelings which nothing else can but it contains no truth about the world
89
give the quotation of Randall about religion arousing special feelings but containing no truth about the world
- "they make us receptive to qualities of the world encountered and open our hearts to new qualities"
- "they enable us to see and feel the religious dimension of our world better, they teach us how to find the divine"
90
what is God for Randall
- our ideals
- an intellectual symbol for what we feel to be the divine for the religious dimension of our spirituality
- God is just another name for an aspect of our psyche, its spirituality
- just as we have an aesthetic sense we have a spiritual sense
- he argues it makes no sense to ask whether or not this sense is even true - they are non-cognitive symbols - we can't ask whether its true but we can ask whether its good or moving
- Randall's interpretation of God does not seek to determine the truth or the accuracy of God as a symbol
91
what people argue about Randall's interpretation of God as a symbol
- a religious believer could object that this is not what she means by God - it seems to miss the point a little
- a non-believer could ask what the different is between this 'divine' and a figment of our imagination and emotions
- For Randall religion is a human enterprise that performs a valuable cultural function but no more than that - its symbols are non-representative
- the Believer would claim that the God in whom she believes is not reducible to an art form or a subjective reality - when she speaks of God she is speaking of an overwhelming reality
- Randall's symbol would not relate to what she meant when she prayed to God - she would not accept that she was simply praying to herself
