Religious Language Flashcards
The three main questions around religious language
1) If God exists in such a different way from humanity, is it possible to use human language to speak intelligibly about God?
2) Does human language inevitable limit God?
3) Considering this, how can Christians meaningfully talk about God?
Agnosticism
The view that God cannot be known as there is insufficient evidence for God
Truth-claim
A statement that asserts that something is factually true
Apophatic way (via negativa)
A way of speaking about God using only terms that say what God is not.
Cataphatic way (via positiva)
A way of speaking about God using only terms that say what God is
Univocal language
Words that have the same meaning at all times
e.g. girl
Equivocal language
Words that mean different things when used in different contexts
e.g. table
Cognitive statements
Statements that makes factual claims about the empirical world - it is appropriate to ask whether this is true or false.
e.g. London is the capital of France = cognitive and objectively false
Non-cognitive statements
Statements that communicate information not restricted to empirical facts - neither true or false it is a matter of opinion
e.g. London is the most beautiful city = non-cognitive and can be ‘true/false’ subjectively
Richard Dawkins on whether religious statements are cognitive or non cognitive
-Most religious statements are cognitive but obviously false
-Religious believers speak sentences that are untrue
Religious Language and its problem
Religious language refers to the way believers talk about God, faith, and spiritual concepts
Problem: It’s not possible to meaningfully talk about things you don’t understand.
Most Christians agree that God is beyond our understanding.
In that case, how can Christians meaningfully talk about God?
Big Philosophical debate on RL
Whether it conveys objective truth or is meaningful only within religious contexts.
Sometimes RL is used in the context of truth-claims. What does this mean?
Using language to make statements about what is and what is not the case.
For example: ‘Jesus is the Son of God’
= Cognitive statement - considered objectively true by believers
Why may some argue it is better to speak about God via negativa rather than via positiva?
Our words apply only to finite, imperfect things that belong in this world.
For example: God as ‘judge’ or a ‘father’ make us think of human judges and fathers.
Problematic as we anthropomorphise God thereby limiting Him - making Him too small.
So we must talk about what God is not to avoid misrepresenting God.
Evaluation of Apophatic Way (STRENGTHS)
1) Emphasise the difference between humanity and God - gives respect. PETER VARDY: Does not reduce God to being semi human
2) Avoids misrepresentation of God - if we say God is love, we can only think of human love with all its flaws and jealousies, fluctuations and limits -> pointless using positive language as inaccurate so it does not give us a true understanding of God
3) Accepts the mysteries of God and does not limit Him - it communicates clearly the infinity and mystery of God. Might be supported by Rudolph Otto: recognised God was ‘wholly other’ and ‘numinous’
Via Negativa Supporter: Pseudo-Dionysius
Via negativa is only way which we can speak truthfully about God because God is beyond all human understanding and imagination.
Counter productive to speak of God as though He can be perceived by the senses or reason.
Believed the demands of the body and the mind’s desire for complete understanding holds back the soul from unification with God => only through recognition of the limits of humanity and accepting the ‘cloud of unknowing’ can spiritual progress be made.
Via Negativa Supporter: Maimonides
By explaining what God is not, people can move closer to an accurate understanding of what God is without limiting God in their thoughts.
Used example of a ship to demonstrate this, by explaining what the object is not e.g not a ‘plant’ or a ‘sphere’ a person can ‘almost arrive at the correct notion’ of the object being a ship =>God can be best understood using negative terms
Evaluation of Apophatic Way (WEAKNESSES)
1) We cannot actually gain any understanding of what God is through negative language - Brian Davis. Negative language only allows us to actually gain knowledge in “special cases” e.g. when we know exactly what possibilities there are for a thing - if we know a person is not left-handed and not ambidextrous, then we can know they are right-handed. But God is not like that => possibilities are endless
2) People do not talk in this way - it is usually more straightforward to talk about things using positive terms as positive language helps to define concepts directly and clearly.
3) Lack of scriptural support for via negativa, Bible is via positiva e.g God is love. Bible = verbally inspired - so God has revealed Himself using positive language therefore it is unnecessary to use negative terms
Via Negativa Critic: Brian Davis
1) Argues that negative language is least helpful type of language we have
2) Stating that ‘God is not a wombat’ is useless in giving us a greater understanding of what God is
Via Negativa Critic: Flew
The apophatic way means religious claims are framed in such a way that they cannot be tested, verified, or even disproven so become unfalsifiable and therefore, cannot meaningfully contribute to our understanding of the world.
