Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

a level philosophy > Religious Language 1 > Flashcards

Religious Language 1 Flashcards

1
Q

Univocal

A

A word is used in the same way in different contexts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Equivocal

A

A word has a different meaning in different contexts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Cognitive

A

A statement that is subject to being true or false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Non-cognitive

A

A statement that is not subject to being true or false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Tautology

A

A statement that is always true, it contains the definition within it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Cataphatic way

A

Uses positive language to describe the qualities and nature of God

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Apophatic way defenition

A

The only legitimate way to talk about God is to say what he is not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Analogy of attribution

A

A way of talking about God through attributing characteristics of the created to the creator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Analogy of proportion

A

A way of talking about God by comparing limited human concepts with a proportionally much greater idea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sign

A

Points to something outside itself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Symbol

A

Participates in that to which it points and conveys a depth of meaning often at an emotional level

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Example of analogy of proportion

A

Comparing primary school pianist with a concert pianist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Maimonides example

A

Describe a ship only by only saying what it is not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
Q

J H Randall’s stregths

A
  • 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
Q

Critique of symbolic religious language

A
  • 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
Q

Aquinas conclusion of proportion

A
  • 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
Q

Ian Ramsey and analogy

A
  • 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
Q

Disclosure situation

A
  • 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
Q

Bart

A
  • 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
Q

Why use the Apophatic way

A
  • God is beyond finite human capability to understand

- Talking about God in human terms is disrespectful as it anthropomorphises God

32
Q

Moses Maimonides

A
  • 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
Q

Davis

A

You are more likely to end up saying that it is more likely to be a wardrobe than a ship

34
Q

Aquinas conclusion

A
  • 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
Q

Brummer

A
  • 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
Q

Participating in

A
  • 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
Q

Tillich - Participates in

A
  • 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
Q

‘Every symbol is double-edged. It opens up reality and it opens up the soul’

A
  • 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
Q

Ground of being

A
  • 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
Q

J H Randall weaknesses

A
  • 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
Q

Main problems of religious language

A
  • anthropomorphism
  • how can we talk about God
  • angosticism
42
Q

Randall

A
  • religious symbols are both non-cognitive and non-representative
  • not subject to being true or false
  • music can’t be described
43
Q

We can talk accurately about God

A
  • 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
Q

Not possible to talk accurately about God

A
  • 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

a level philosophy (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions