religious language 1 Flashcards
what is the problem with religious langauge?
we try to apply finite human language to God who is infinite, which limits him
how can we avoid this problem
we can talk about God by saying what he is not, by using the apophatic way.
name of philosopher who argued for the apophatic way
pseudo-dionysius
what did pseudo-dionysius argue
the via negativa is the only way in which we can talk truthfully about God because God is beyond all human understanding
it is counter-productive to speak of God as though God can be perceived through the senses, or we can reach God through reason
if you try to find God through reason you will believe in a God who is too small. People should stop trying to use logic or reasoned arguments
what is the problem with Pseudo-dionysius saying that we should stop using logic or reasoned arguments to understand God
why did god give us reason and intelligence above animals if we dont use it?
pseudo-dionysius and plato
he was a follower of plato, believing in the division between the physical body and the spiritual soul, and the physical realm and the world of forms. language which is rooted in the physical world (world of shadows) does not help us talk about God.
cognitive language
language which is either true or false
medieval mystic text
“the cloud of unknowing” was greatly influenced by Pseudo-dionysius. this is the idea that the true nature of God is hidden from us, that we cant possibly know about God because he is above all rational thought
second thinker who supported the use of the apophatic way
moses maimonides (medieval jewish thinker)
maimonodes analogy
ship analogy
maimonides ship analogy
a person may know that a ship exists without knowing what a ship is. maimonides argues that after describing something using negative statements such as
1. it is not an accident
2. it is not a mineral
3. it is not a plant etc.
a person will eventually have a very clear idea of what a ship was, once all of the things a ship is not have been considered and this concept will not limit the abilities of the ship
strength of the apophatic way
for some it is the best way of talking about God because it recognises that we have to go beyond out everyday experiences or languages to encounter God.
it is a way of saying something about God that is literally true. there is no need for interpretation of symbols, analogies or allegories. the via negativa asserts a literal truth that would be true across all cultures and can therefore be understood across continents and ages
strength of via negativa
for people who already believe in God, the apophatic way is a reminder that they cannot limit God in their speech or imagination and so may lead them to a greater and deeper understanding of God
the apophatic way acknowleges that there are sometimes rational difficulties in talking about God, but these rational difficulties are irrelevant to belief in God. it makes the experience of believing in God more important than the ability to describe, explain or prove that beleif. for believers this may be a much more fulfilling way of thinking about God.
strength of via negativa
does not anthropomorphise God
weakness of via negativa
it is unclear how saying what something is not, helps me understand what something is. to say that ‘black’ is ‘not white’ actually tells me nothing about black
if we have no knowledge of black or white then the statement ‘black is not white’ would be meaningless as we know nothing about either of the terms
we would also have to have knowledge of every colour that exists in order to identify the colour
brian davies second part of his argument
he goes on to say that - imagine there is something in my room and suppose i reject every suggestion you make as to what is actually there. in that case you will get no idea at all about what is in my room
CATAPHATIC WAY NOTES
add them in bitch
critic of maimonides
brian davies criticises maimonides ship analogy by saying “only saying what something is not gives us no indication of what it actually is, and if one can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.”
he argues that by saying what something is not, we do not discover what something is, and if we cant speak in positives statements about God, then we dont actually have an understanding of what God is.
example of cognitive language
the eiffel tower is in Paris
triangles have three sides etc.
non-cognitive language
language which is not true or false
example of non-cognitive language
ouch
boo
what is the cataphatic way?
talking positively about God by saying what he is like
how does Thomas Aquinas say we use religious language
we use religious language as an analogy
when does Aquinas say we started using analogies in religious language
it is not new, we have always used analogy
what is analogy the midpoint between
univocal and equivocal language
what is univocal language
a word that has one meaning regardless of context
why does Aquinas say univocal language fails - 3 reasons
- because we cant apply the same word we use for humans for God because we are not the same as God
- it reduces God to one human meaning
- anthropomorphises God
what is equivocal language
a word that has multiple meanings across different contexts
why does Aquinas say that equivocal language fails - 1 reason
- we would not know what a word really means when applied to God if it has multiple meanings
why is analogy the mid point between univocal and equivocal language?
because humans are not the same as god (univocal language) but are not completely different (equivocal language). we are analogous to God
how does analogy work?
we explain something difficult to understand which is unfamiliar to us with something easy to understand which is familiar to us
how is the statement “god hears” an analogy?
the way God hears is like the way humans hear but is not the same as the way we hear, but we understand the meaning through the comparison to human hearing.
why do christians like using analogy in religious language
because it allows them to speak cognitively make positive statements or truth claims about God.
analogy is good because it avoids…
anthropomorphising God
Aquinas two types of analogy
analogy of attribution
analogy of proportionality
what is analogy of attribution
the words we apply to humans and God are related because there is a causal link between the two.
we can attribute qualities to the creator of a thing with the qualities of its creation
analogy of attribution in terms of God and humans
humans are good so we can say that God is good because he is our creator who made us
example of analogy of attribution
“if the urine is good, the bull is good”
hicks ‘upward’ analogy of attribution
Gods attributes are a higher level of our own in the same way a dogs faithfulness is in comparison to human faithfulness
analogy of proportionality
the level of a quality something has is in proportion to its being
