religious language Flashcards
what is the debate about religious experience
+for and against
is it possible to talk meaningfully about God? - epistemic distance
Bible, holy trinity, omni-
reliant on faith, nothing can ever be proved
John
1 John 4:8
anyone who does not know love, does not know God, because God is love
what is idolatry
worshipping an idea/image of God that’s inaccurate or false
what is anthropomorphism
ascribing human characteristics to something that’s not human
what is transcendent
God’s nature can’t be described/contained in ordinary language
what is univocal
a word only has one possible meaning
what is equivocal
word has different meaning in different contexts
what is analogical
relating to/based on analogy
what is attribution
the action of regarding something as being caused by a person or thing
what is proportion
a part, share or number considered in comparative relation to whole
what’s the issue with univocal
saying words like loving and good are univocal risks falling into idolatry and anthropomorphism
what’s the issue with equivocal
saying religious terms are equivocal risks not being able to say anything about God
problem of attribution
3 premise argument against univocal/equivocal
p1 in order for RL to be meaningful, needs to be univocal or equivocal
p2 RL is not univocal because of the problem of anthropomorphism
p3 RL is not equivocal because of the problem of attribution
C therefore, religious argument is not meaningful
what are the two solutions to the univocal/equivocal argument that RL is meaningless
Aquinas’ idea of analogy
theological ides via negative
what does Aquinas propose
analogical predication, between univocal and equivocal
analogical meaning of good and loving
have related meanings when used in different contexts, not exactly the same
Aquinas’ logic for analogical
since God created the universe, must be some link between human attributes/predicates
because the words share a likeness, we can infer something about God due to the experience of God
What are Aquinas’ 2 analogies
analogy of proportion
analogy of attribution
what is analogy of proportion
we don’t know exactly what God’ love entails, only that it is upwards of ours
you can make a downwards analogy from human love to canine love
you can make an upward analogy from human love to God’s love
what is analogy of attribution
allows us to assign attributes to God
if bread is good, we associate the baker with goodness - we’ve established what good is
we know what constitutes to ‘good’ in relation to mankind, we can understand what ‘good’ means in relation to their creator: God
what is a strength of Aquinas’ idea of analogy
avoids problem of anthropomorphism and attribution
what is a weakness of Aquinas’ idea of analogy
if we can attribute our goodness to God, can’t we attribute our badness?
human centric
what is the via negativas view on religious language
religious langauage is not logical
avoids problems of anthropomorphism and attribution differently
what is the via negativa
tries to say what things aren’t, rather than are
God is Not evil, not powerless etc
strength of via negativa
avoids problem of anthropomorphism and attribution successfully
what is a weakness of via negativa
infinite ways of not to describe God
what does Swinburne use to demonstrate success of argument from analogy
wave/particle duality of light
we can describe light as both a wave and particle because it displays both characteristics
what happens when we use wave/particle to describe light
+ how does this compare to religious language
when we use either term, we are stretching their definitions whilst still remaining in contact with ordinary meaning
similarly, we can stretch meanings of words like ‘person’ and ‘knows’ when applied to God, yet they remain in contact with their original meaning
who builds on Aquinas’ argument of analogy and how
Swinburne
adds to discourse of analogy by demonstrating its practical use with regard to worldly phenomena
who put forward the idea of symbolism and why
Tillich
symbols are in our everyday reality
symbols point to a deeper level of meaning
e.g. dove - peace, flag - nation
why are symbols more elaborate than what meets the eye
on the surface, symbols could be an ordinary image/word, but has a deeper level of meaning not included in the dictionary definition
why is a sign unlike a symbol
a sign has no intrinsic link to a deeper level of meaning, e.g. road sign
features of symbols (5)
a symbol participates in the reality to which it points
e.g. a national flag participates in the reality of the nation, exemplifies history, culture and identity
points to something beyond themselves
opens up levels of reality otherwise closed off from us
can’t deliberately be created
might grow in meaning and then die out of usage
who influenced Tillich
Otto
what was Otto’s main idea
main idea was of the numinous
God is thought to be completely beyond rational comprehension and sensory perception
what is God for Otto
God is beyond the self and is only known in a feeling if mystery and awe
How did Otto influence Tillich
influence Tillich with the idea that there are levels of ourselves and reality we don’t normally access, but can through symbolism
who is against Tillich
Hick
Macquarrie
Alston
Randall
how is hick against Tillich
little difference between symbol and sign
how is Macquarrie against Tillich
agrees with hick that there is little difference between symbol and sign
‘clouds are a sign of rain’, but also a symbol
can’t distinguish between the two
how is Alston against Tillich
symbols are meaningless, we don’t know whether they’re true or not
what 4 functions does Randall reduce symbols to
motivational - inspire people emotionally (e.g. in religion, a cross)
social - common understanding of religious symbols brings people together
communicational - religious symbols can express beliefs that literal language can’t
indicative - vision of god
how is Randall against Tillich
God has no cognitive content / does’t convey information
he has been reduced to symbol for human values
if ‘god loves us’ os just a symbol, it tells us nothing at all about an actual being called God
just tells us how important it is that we as human beings feel loved
weakness of Tillich
if religious language is purely symbolic, then it literally isn’t true
weakness of symbols
different religions have different symbols, which are more or less accurate?
are they all meaningless as they contradict?
