Religious language Flashcards
Apophatic way/via negativa
It is only possible to talk about what God is not.
Cataphatic way/via positiva
It is possible to talk about what God is.
Pseudo Dionysius on via negativa
Since God is completely beyond our understanding, we can’t possibly talk about what he is.
Pseudo Dionysius quote
“There is no speaking of it, nor name, nor knowledge of it”
Moses Maimonides on via negativa
Religious language is meaningful only when used negatively.
If you were to describe what a ship is not, you get closer to understanding what it is.
Brian Davies’ rejection of via negativa
We need to know what the possibilities are, so we know what is left when alternatives are discarded. it wouldn’t work for those who know nothing of God.
Equivocal language
A word that has different meanings in different contexts.
Univocal language
Using a word in the same way.
Analogical language
The same word is used, not in the same exact way but similar.
Aquinas’ analogy of attribution
Attributing features to God by using the features we see in his creation - as these participate in the essence of God.
Aquinas’ analogy of proportion
When using human words to describe God, w must understand that it applies to God in a much greater proportion because God is divine.
Brian Davies’ example of the analogy of attribution
A good loaf of bread can attribute to the goodness of the baker BUT only the goodness of his skill, not his entire goodness.
Von Hügels example of the analogy of proportion
The faithfulness of a human would be proportionally more than a dogs faithfulness.
Tillich’s symbolic language
It participates in something outside of itself as a symbol does. It attempts to comment and connect to an ultimate reality.
He wants to use positive language (Cataphatic way) to talk about God (affirm) whilst also recognising that he is beyond human language (negate).
Tillich quote on symbolic language
“Able to express the ultimate but also unlocks elements of our soul”
Symbolic language in the Bible
God : “The rock, His work is perfect”
Jesus : “Behold the Lamb of God who takes sin away from the world”
Alton’s criticism of symbolic language
Important Christian doctrines (eg heaven and hell) need to be taken as factual.
Hick’s criticism of symbolic language
Philisophical language about God (Eg God being non-dependent/contingent) is not symbolic.
Hick’s criticism of symbols
How much are we connecting with God through the emotions evoked from these symbols?
Randall - cognitive statements
Any form of language which is factual and can be proved
Randall - non-cognitive statements
Language which isn’t used to express empirical facts. Expresses opinion and feelings.
Randall on symbolic language
All religious language is non-cognitive. Symbols have no objective reality. Religion plays a valuable cultural function but is simply a human endeavour.
Whitehead’s criticism of Tillich
Tillich is overly abstract, and God as the “Ground of being” was too impersonal and detached from the world.
Whitehead’s philosophy emphasises God as involved in the world.
Literalist’s criticism of Tillich
Tillich’s symbolic interpretation of religious language undermines the authority of sacred texts - he weakens the direct communicative power of religious texts and rituals.
Karl Barth’s criticism of Tillich
He reduces God to something that is too anthropocentric.
Derrida’s criticism of Tillich
Religious symbols do not merely point beyond themselves to a transcendent reality, but are interpreted differently depending on the person using them - there is no objective understanding.
How do Aquinas’ ideas of natural theology and analogy link?
A strength of Aquinas’ theory is its foundation in natural theology.
Reason is a gift from God, resulting from being made in his image.
God designed our reason with the power to know something about God – in this case, about the analogy between our attributes and God’s.
What is Brummer’s criticism of Aquinas’ analogy of proportion?
Saying God is loving proportionate to his infinite being, is simply saying God is loving in a way we cannot understand – since we can’t grasp the infinite.
We are merely saying that God is not loving in the way humans are loving, but we cannot say in what way God is loving.
What is a quote that shows Brummer’s criticism of Aquinas’ analogy of proportion?
“The analogy of proportionality thus takes us no further than a negative theology”
