Religious Language 1 Flashcards
what two questions does this topic ask?
Can we talk about God?
Can we know God?
Apophatic
we can only talk about God negatively (what God is not)
Kataphic
we can talk about God positively
univocal language
same word, same meaning
equivocal language
same word, different meaning
analogical language
same word, similar but different meanings
what type of language does Aristotle think we us to talk about God?
Analogical language because the language we use to describe God and for example, humans may be the same word but it has different meanings if we were to use it for God.
Aquinas analogy of Attribution
one is the cause of the other
eg) healthy veg and healthy humans
aquinas analogy of proportion
one is more than the other
eg) intelligent dog and intelligent chessmaster (human)
Aquinas argument; analogy of attribution
Who? Like causes like effects, five ways (observation, teleological, etc.) and reason
what? Aquinas believed that we can talk about God in a Kataphatic sense. We do this neither with univocal or equivocal language but with analogical language shown through the analogy of attribution.
Why? His argument follows;
1.God is the cause of all good things in the world. This is plausible because of Aquinas’ 5th way which explains that there must be a cause for all the good things in the world and this cause has to be God. For example, if there is love in the world, God has to be the cause of all love.
2. If so, we can use the analogy of attribution to talk about Him. This is plausible because when I say that ‘God is just’ using the analogy of attribution all I am saying is ‘God causes justice’ and this is true due to premise 1.
3.So: we can use the analogy of proportion to talk about Him.
Aquinas argument; analogy of proportion
1.God is the cause of all good things in the world. This is plausible because of Aquinas’ fifth way, which explains that there must be a cause for all the good things in the world, and this cause has to be God. For example, if there is love in the world, God has to be the cause of all love.
2.If so, we can use the analogy of proportion to talk about Him. This is plausible because of the like causes like effects principle meaning if we can observe the effects (good things in the world) then God must therefore be good however the analogy of proportion must be applied because God has to be infinitely more good than the good he brings about because he is so other and transcendent.
3.So: (2)
Maimonides argument
Who and what? The liberal reader of Jewish scripture
Why?
1.Human language is insufficient to talk about God positively. This is plausible because God is so transcendent and other meanings we cannot apply human concepts to him. For example, love, for us humans love is subject to change and finite whereas God’s Love is not mean if we say that God is love is at risk of being finitely loving.
2.If so, then we can only talk about God apophatically. This is plausible because it means that we can only talk about God in terms of what he is not, so to say God is love is to just say God is not hate.
3.So: (2)
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
PINT: Passive, ineffable, noetic, transient
Who? Neoplatonist and mystic (find out about God through ineffable experiences)
What? Pseudo-Dionysius, Neoplatonism and mystic thought that how we can describe experiences with God are darkness, unknowing and silence, thought that religious language, specifically apophatic language, should help us to remove any concepts that we wrongly apply to God so that we can reach ineffable union with Him.
Why?
1.We can only know about God through an ineffable union with Him. This is plausible because God is transcendent and so other means that we cannot apply concepts to God. The only way we can know God is through ineffable experiences which lead to ineffable union.
2.If so, then the religious language should be apophatic. This is plausible because if otherwise, it is kataphatic which does not work because it would be applying human concepts to God and therefore pushing us further away from true knowledge of God and therefore taking away from the ineffable union with God.
3.So: (2)
Paul Tillich: positive argument
Who? Liberal theologian; correlation theology (theology views match up ‘correlate’ with the philosophical questions we have.
Positive argument why?
1.‘Love’ participates in being itself. This is plausible because love has being (i.e exists) meaning that it can participate in being itself. (anything that has been can participate in being itself.
2.If so, then love can be used as a symbol for God. This is plausible because symbols point to something else whilst participating in the reality of the thing and if so love participates in the reality of being itself then it therefore can be used as a symbol for itself.
3.So: love can be used as a symbol for God.
Paul Tillich: negative argument
Who? Liberal theologian; correlation theology (theology views match up ‘correlate’ with the philosophical questions we have.
What? God is being itself/ the ground of all being.
Negative argument why?
1.Ordinary signs can describe things that exist. This can be demonstrated through examples; the word ‘table’ describes a thing that exists, the word ‘fish’ describes a thing that exists and so can both be said to have been.
2.If so, then they cannot be used to describe being itself-God. This is plausible because signs are used to describe things that have being and not being itself because God is not a thing that exists but rather existence itself.
3.So: (2)
