C: RL as non-cognitive and analogical Flashcards
What is the premise of this conclusion?
- If we can’t talk meaningfully about what God is,can we say what he is not? eg. God is not evil.
- Analogical refers to expression through analogy.
Negative language towards God
- view of philosophers like
MOSES MAIMONIDES
PSEUDO DIONYSUS - they put forward the Via Negativa
- This avoids problems inherent to RL as it doesn’t use words that are based in our own experience.
- We are incapable of TRULY understanding God, but we can meaningfully understand him by asserting what he is not.
Via Negativa- the negative way
- The best way for us to talk about God is through negative language.
HOWEVER whilst we can assert God is not evil, for example, we don’t really know anything else- doesn’t define.
Apophatic
Apophatic- God cannot be known in terms of human categories.
It can argued that speaking of God in negative terms avoids the problem of misinterpreting God.
God is beyond the human ability to describe.
Aquinas
- agreed God is beyond human experience.
- We are imperfect beings using imperfect language to describe a perfect being.
- Rejected via negativa, believing positive things can be said through analogy.
Three forms of language
Influenced by Aristotle, put forward by Aquinas;
1. UNIVOCAL - having a single, unambiguous meaning.
2. EQUIVOCAL- having multiple meanings usually in relation to a word/ phrase.
3. ANALOGICAL- using language in one context that points to the meaning in another context, using an analogy.
Aquinas’ analogies.
- Rely on point of comparison to link things.
- We can use analogy to talk about God as God is revealed through creation.
- God is good -> we see goodness in creation.
- When Aquinas talks about God as being good, he is not referring to morality. God is not inside time so cannot act- God is good means God lives up to what he should be; He is actuality.
- The bull is healthy; the urine is healthy.
Aquinas’ two types of analogy
ANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION: We ascribe a quality to one thing because it is caused by another.
eg. the urine being a reflection of the bull’s health, as human wisdom is a reflection of divine wisdom.
ANALOGY OF PROPORTION: E ascribe a quality to one thing as it points towards another thing which has that quality.
John Hick’s example- dog is faithful, man is faithful, God is faithful. Dog’s faithfulness more limited than ours, so is ours compared to God.
Ian Ramsey
Argued RL is symbolic and analogical, in ‘Religious Language’ (1957).
Said words we apply to God function as ‘models’ in that they tell us something about God but not the whole story.
By talking about God using models and qualifiers, we can eventually reach an understanding of God.
Models and qualifiers
- Models tend to be simpler than original on which they are based; when we say God is good, we are basing that on our limited perspective of ‘goodness’
(similar to analogy of proportion) - To understand ‘God is good’, we must include a qualifier- something that acknowledges the limitations of the model.
“God is good” ———> “God is infinitely good” - Models help us gain understanding of what is being talked about. Evokes imagery and gives us information (some already hold qualifier eg. God is a warrior)
- Models need to be qualified so they relate to God. Tells us something about God- it makes a disclosure.
OBJECTIONS:
- We cannot know what qualities shown through analogy mean for God- does this suggest it is actually meaningless?
- Aquinas rejects the literal meaning of words as being applicable to God.
- Richard Swinburne suggested sometimes words could be used univocally to talk about God.
STRENGTH:
Observe the world empirically and consequently deduce that there must be a higher being above, we are just incapable of understanding its nature.
