Religious Language 1 Flashcards
1
Q
Univocal
A
A word is used in the same way in different contexts
2
Q
Equivocal
A
A word has a different meaning in different contexts
3
Q
Cognitive
A
A statement that is subject to being true or false
4
Q
Non-cognitive
A
A statement that is not subject to being true or false
5
Q
Tautology
A
A statement that is always true, it contains the definition within it
6
Q
Cataphatic way
A
Uses positive language to describe the qualities and nature of God
7
Q
Apophatic way defenition
A
The only legitimate way to talk about God is to say what he is not
8
Q
Analogy of attribution
A
A way of talking about God through attributing characteristics of the created to the creator
9
Q
Analogy of proportion
A
A way of talking about God by comparing limited human concepts with a proportionally much greater idea
10
Q
Sign
A
Points to something outside itself
11
Q
Symbol
A
Participates in that to which it points and conveys a depth of meaning often at an emotional level
12
Q
Examples of the analogy of attribution
A
- bulls urine indicates the health of the bull (Aquinas)
- good bread is attributed to a good baker (Davies)
13
Q
Example of analogy of proportion
A
Comparing primary school pianist with a concert pianist
14
Q
Aquinas
A
- Argued for the cataphatic way
- cataphatic avoids the extremes
- rejects via negativa
- human language is limited but believers want to say something about God
- rejects univocal and equivocal
15
Q
Tillich
A
Argues symbolic religious language is the only way to talk about God
- religious statements are not literally true
- difference between symbol and sign
16
Q
Maimonides example
A
Describe a ship only by only saying what it is not
17
Q
Pseudo-Dionysius
A
- The apophatic way preserves the mystery of God
- suggests that God is beyond assertion or any description used in the cataphatic way
18
Q
Gregory of Nyssa
A
- Spiritual life is a mysticism of darkness
- there comes a point at which a believer enters an outer darkness and into the apophatic way of God’s ineffable, transcendent reality
- there are no words to describe the understanding of God, it is beyond words
19
Q
Strengths of apophatic way
A
- preserves the mystery and transcendence of God
- avoids anthropomorphism because it does not use human language to talk about God
- supports the God is ineffable
- respectful way of talking about God - understands God is beyond human understanding
- implies the positive
20
Q
Weaknesses of the apophatic way
A
- limited understanding of God (doesn’t communicate much)
- believers seek positive knowledge and want to communicate to others in words
- Davies: saying what God is not brings us no closer to understanding God
- negative does not overcome problems of positive
21
Q
Strength of analogy of proportion
A
- recognises the difference between humans and God
22
Q
Weakness of analogy of proportion
A
- how do we know ‘how much more’ God is compared to humans
- what is proportion, how do we know what this is
- is there any difference to equivocal language
- limit God
23
Q
Strength of Aquinas’ analogy
A
- allows something positive to be said about God whilst avoiding anthropomorphism and agnosticism
24
Q
Strengths of symbolic religious language
A
- preserves the mystery of God whilst allowing us to say something about God
- it unlocks something within us that connects to ultimate reality
- reminds of danger of anthropomorphism
- understand the depth and meaning of the believers
- changes over time so is relevant
- Tillich: true or false
- Randall: subjective, don’t need to prove
25
J H Randall’s stregths
- it is subjective: it changes over time, useful to talk using subjective when concerned with a subjective topic
- non-cognitive: aw of understanding how to interact with the Ultimate, don’t have to try and do something that it can’t
26
Critique of symbolic religious language
- open to interpretation and change: non cognitive and subjective
- Hick: what does it mean to participate in
- can be misinterpreted and become irrelevant
- lead to agnosticism as there are questions
- in what ways can my words participate in the reality of God
27
Aquinas conclusion of proportion
- allows something positive to be said about God
- the precise meaning of the words cannot be known
- language used to talk about God will always be limited because ultimately God is incomprehensible
28
Ian Ramsey and analogy
- the model
- the qualifier
- the good shepherd
- redefining Aquinas (not saying more)
- adding a qualifier to God shows that he is somehow the same but somewhat differnt
29
Disclosure situation
- lots of polygons make a circle, is beyond the lines and beyond what is actually there
- this is what happens with religious language, you are not literally talking about God being a literal shepherd - move along the analogy
30
Bart
- Humans where so corrupt, we can’t know because we are limited
- if we know anything about God as a creator, the only way we know is through revelation
31
Why use the Apophatic way
- God is beyond finite human capability to understand
| - Talking about God in human terms is disrespectful as it anthropomorphises God
32
Moses Maimonides
- wanted to be able to say something about God, claimed that humans and God where totally different and the words used about God would be equivocal
- can’t know exactly what words used about God mean as he is beyond human comprehension
- talking in the negative gets you closer to understanding God
33
Davis
You are more likely to end up saying that it is more likely to be a wardrobe than a ship
34
Aquinas conclusion
- analogy allows something positive to be said about God
- precise meaning of the word can’t be known
- language will always be limited because God is incomprehensible
- reminder of language limits and anthropomorphising
35
Brummer
- Analogy of proportion: ‘God is not wise in the same way that humans are wise’, cannot say positively how God is wise, no further than apophatic way
- Analogy of attribution: if God is creator, he is the source of all characteristics of his creatures
36
Participating in
- evokes emotions, draws you in and makes you think about what is going on
- evokes more than just looking and simple description but wants you to look and feel something
37
Tillich - Participates in
- religious language functions like an appreciation of the arts
- eg art or music
- it ‘unlocks something within our soul..it expresses something about the ultimate’
38
‘Every symbol is double-edged. It opens up reality and it opens up the soul’
- it affirms and negates
- God is love, affirms he IS love but negates as love is inadequate to describe God
- opens up reality and opens up the soul
39
Ground of being
- only non symbolic phrase
- everything is built on God
- God is the basis and the underlying
- this is the ultimate reality ad the way of being itself is understood
40
J H Randall weaknesses
- subjective: not sure on a universalised view and whether it is being interpreted in the right way
- non-cognitive: most belivers want there to be an objective reality and it to be real anot not just a human endeavour
41
Main problems of religious language
- anthropomorphism
- how can we talk about God
- angosticism
42
Randall
- religious symbols are both non-cognitive and non-representative
- not subject to being true or false
- music can’t be described
43
We can talk accurately about God
- Apophatic way: doesn’t limit human concepts
- analogy of attribution: give characteristics of God that are seen in his creation
- analogy of proportion: recognises difference between human and God
- symbolic language: participates in unlocking something deep within
44
Not possible to talk accurately about God
- apophatic way is not saying anything useful: Davies
- attribution: how do we know we are correct in attributing these characteristics
- proportion: how do we know how much more God is than our human words
- symbolic: no sense beyond the individual
