1.8 Religious Language One

Question 1

What is the apophatic way?

Answer 1

• also known as the via negativa
• argued for byPseudo-Dionysius, Moses Maimonides
• we must talk about God only in negative terms, or what He is not to avoid anthropomorphising him

Question 2

Inge

Answer 2

• Inge, the Dean of St Pauls Cathedral in the 20th century criticised the apophatic way
• said it led to a disconnect and therefore the annhiliation of God

Question 3

Hick

Answer 3

• Hick uses proper proportion for faithfulness
• the apophatic scholars would say it anthropomorphises God and limits understanding

Question 4

Gilkey

Answer 4

• Langdon Gilkey
• 20th century American theologian
• criticised Tillich for overemphasising the existential dimension of symbols at the expense of historical and concrete aspects of religious traditions

Question 5

pseudo-dionysius

Answer 5

• Advocated via negativa, suggesting that God can best be described in terms of what He is not
• 6th century AD

Question 6

Aquinas

Answer 6

• Used via positiva but also emphasised the importance of analogical language in speaking of God
• a balanced description between affirmative descriptions of God and their limitations

Question 7

Paul Tillich

Answer 7

Promoted a symbolic understanding of religious language, arguing that symbols participate in the divine

Question 8

Maimonides

Answer 8

• focused on via negativa, arguing that one can only make negative statements about God to avoid attributing human qualities to the divine
• spanish twelfth century rabbi

Question 9

what scholars support Tillich’s views on symbol?

Answer 9

Friedrich Schleiermacher
- religious doctrines are expressions of inner feelings or experiences and should be understood symbolically not as literal truth

Sallie McFague
- uses metaphors for traditional theological terms for a modern take on religious symoblism

Rudolf Otto
- Described religious experience and language in terms of the “numinous,” using symbolic language to convey the idea of the holy as wholly other
- useful for understanding experiences beyond ordinary empirical understanding

Question 10

what is equivocal language?

Answer 10

when terms like “good” are applied to God, they do not mean the same thing as when applied to humans

Question 11

what is univocal language?

Answer 11

terms can apply to God and humans in the same sense, although understanding how attributes apply to God may differ due to His divine nature

Question 12

what is analogical language?

Answer 12

terms are used in a similar but not identical sense when describing God and creatures, reflecting a proportional similarity
often used by Aquinas

Question 13

what are two strengths of the apophatic way?

Answer 13

1. avoids an anthropomorphic description of God, recognising He is wholly other and not part of the empirical world
2. fits with the concept of religious experience, as William James said religious experiences are ineffable

Question 14

what are three weaknesses of the apophatic way?

Answer 14

1. it is incredibly limited in what we can say about God, can it bring any knowledge at all?
2. the key scriptures of all major faiths describe God in positive terms
3. it means the believer has no way of communicating to the non-believer and undermines the important principle of evangelism

Question 15

what is Aquinas’ analogy of attribution

Answer 15

• human attributes and words can be used as a pale reflection of the same divine attributes
• e.g. we can examine human love, wisdom and power to try and gain an understanding of God’s bearing in mind his is infinitely more
• the analogy of the bull, if its urine is healthy then so is it

Question 16

what is Aquinas’ analogy of proper proportion?

Answer 16

• important to remember how everything is in proportion
• to say a human is good is in proportion to its fallible weak nature
• to say God is good has a totally different meaning due to his omnipotence and infinity

Question 17

how does Hick further Aquinas on analogy?

Answer 17

• develops his idea of proper proportion through the term ‘faithfulness’
• just as we see a dogs faithfulness as more limited than human faithfulness so too our faithfulness is vastly smaller when compared to the faithfulness of God

Question 18

what are two strengths of the cataphatic way?

Answer 18

1. it is not univocal so avoids speaking anthropomorphically about God but is not equivocal so avoids agnosticism that comes with it
2. the method of analogy is also not dissimilar to what Jesus used in his parables which would begin with the phrase ‘the kingdom of God is like…’

Question 19

what are three weaknesses of the cataphatic way?

Answer 19

1. when it comes to analogies everyone interprets that differently - ‘God is a shepherd’ means different things to different people
2. Swinburne argued that religious statements are not analogical but univocal, the meaning remains in contact with the everyday meaning but is stretched
3. how far do we stretch the meaning, if we say ‘god is love’ we know that it is not the human love but where to go from there?

Question 20

what is univocal language?

Answer 20

the idea that words have the same meaning at all times

Question 21

what is equivocal language?

Answer 21

the idea that the same word is used with two completely different meanings

Question 22

what is Tillich’s argument on symbols?

Answer 22

• we can’t speak literally of God because he is not a part of the empirical world
• symbols have a limited lifespan and may change over time
• it opens up a level of reality that would be otherwise closed to us

Question 23

what is a quote from Tillich on symbols?

Answer 23

“every symbol is double edged. It opens up reality, and it opens the soul”

Theology of Culture

Question 24

what are two strengths of symbols?

Answer 24

1. preserves the transcendency and mystery of God in a way analogical language does not, it communicates deeply in a waay ordinary language cannot
2. the fact it can change with time ensures the message remains relevant to its cultural context

Question 25

what are three weaknesses of symbolic language?

Answer 25

1. Tillich claims symbolic language is cognitive and provides statements which are true of God, JH Randall argues instead that whilst religious language may be symbolic it is non-cognitive and provides no information about God
2. the fact symbols can change over time might mean our ideas of God will also change over time
3. a symbol might mean one thing to one person and something else to another

Question 26

what is a completely alternative take on religious language?

Answer 26

Karl Barth
- thought religious language should be accessible to all people, not just scholars and theologians in his aim to make theology relevant to everyone
- his approach to theology is often described as ‘neo-orthodox’
- as well as ordinary language he especially emphasised the importance of divine revelation (e.g. knowledge of God, can’t use reason)
- therefore theological language should be grounded in the revelation of God through Jesus Christ