Religious Language 1 Flashcards
Univocal
A word is used in the same way in different contexts
Equivocal
A word has a different meaning in different contexts
Cognitive
A statement that is subject to being true or false
Non-cognitive
A statement that is not subject to being true or false
Tautology
A statement that is always true, it contains the definition within it
Cataphatic way
Uses positive language to describe the qualities and nature of God
Apophatic way defenition
The only legitimate way to talk about God is to say what he is not
Analogy of attribution
A way of talking about God through attributing characteristics of the created to the creator
Analogy of proportion
A way of talking about God by comparing limited human concepts with a proportionally much greater idea
Sign
Points to something outside itself
Symbol
Participates in that to which it points and conveys a depth of meaning often at an emotional level
Examples of the analogy of attribution
- bulls urine indicates the health of the bull (Aquinas)
- good bread is attributed to a good baker (Davies)
Example of analogy of proportion
Comparing primary school pianist with a concert pianist
Aquinas
- 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
Tillich
Argues symbolic religious language is the only way to talk about God
- religious statements are not literally true
- difference between symbol and sign
Maimonides example
Describe a ship only by only saying what it is not
Pseudo-Dionysius
- The apophatic way preserves the mystery of God
- suggests that God is beyond assertion or any description used in the cataphatic way
Gregory of Nyssa
- 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
Strengths of apophatic way
- 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
Weaknesses of the apophatic way
- 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
Strength of analogy of proportion
- recognises the difference between humans and God
Weakness of analogy of proportion
- 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
Strength of Aquinas’ analogy
- allows something positive to be said about God whilst avoiding anthropomorphism and agnosticism
Strengths of symbolic religious language
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Davis
You are more likely to end up saying that it is more likely to be a wardrobe than a ship
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
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
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
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’
‘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
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
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
Main problems of religious language
- anthropomorphism
- how can we talk about God
- angosticism
Randall
- religious symbols are both non-cognitive and non-representative
- not subject to being true or false
- music can’t be described
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
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
