Religious Language Flashcards
What is the via Negativa ( first version )
Pseudo-Dionysius (Mystical Theology)
Argues that God is so utterly transcendent he is best characterised through the ‘via Negativa’ - by way ‘of negation’ ; to ‘negate’ meaning ‘deny’.
What type of theology is the via Negativa
This is an apophatic theology : a theological method that attempts to describe God negatively by saying what he is not. It is defined in opposition to ‘cataphatic theology’ which is positive description of God, by saying what he is.
What is an apophatic theology
Give an example of one
This is an apophatic theology : a theological method that attempts to describe God negatively by saying what he is not. It is defined in opposition to ‘cataphatic theology’ which is positive description of God, by saying what he is.
EG: The via Negativa
What is pseudo Dionysius’ apophatic theology
- States that apophatic theology starts with concrete and particular descriptions of Gods attributes,
- and then abstracts away all particularities until it is left with ‘universal conceptions’ of these attributes.
- These universal conceptions aren’t traditionally understood but experienced through mystical state of ‘unknowing’.
What is Maimonides development of the via Negativa
(Jewish philosopher) : “Guide for the Perplexed”
argues beyond what Pseudo Dionysius says, ‘apophatic theology’ isn’t just essential but ultimately superior and self sufficient
God is so radically transcendent that he possesses things like power in such a manner radically unlike how humans understand/possess power.
Using cataphatic theology inevitably distorts his nature and creates a false impression of him
Its a form of anthropomorphising God and limiting God to human capacities
“He who affirms attributes of god has not sufficient knowledge concerting the creator…he unconsciously loses his belief in god”
Three strengths of the via Negativa
- It avoids the problems of anthropomorphism and focuses on transcendence.
2.
Supported by claims in mystical tradition like Stace or Otto: “wholly other”, where mystical experience is ineffable and indescribable beyond sense experience.
3.
avoids problem of positive language. If you explain God in positive language it wont work because God cannot be a ‘thing’ as he is the creator of all things and he cannot hence be attributes to his creation as he is so beyond that.
Four limitations of the via Negativa
- its impossible to approach some kind of understanding by saying what God isnt. This will never lead us anywhere.
- Mystical tradition contradicts via Negativa because if someone had an experience with God but should not describe it positively how can we know if it is God or an experience of the brain (Swinburne would argue god is the cause of everything)
- Practically how is it possible to worship a God in negative concepts - religious believers may not like it
- Parable of the gardener: the concept of God ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications’. What youre left with after millions of negations is nothing at all. Does a collection of negations = a clear concept of God?
It is ur falsifiable
What is the analogical theory
Who says it
Argues that God can be described positively, eg; as what he is ‘he is transcendent’, but only analogically.
A cataphatic theology which uses analogies
He questions whether we should use language to describe God univocally or equivocally
Univocally
When words have the same meaning in different contexts : black can describe both crows and dogs. Cannot describe God like this because it denies gods transcendence and anthropomorphises him.
- Equivocally
When words have different meanings in different context: “bat” is both the animal and used for a sport.We cant describe God like this because it denies creations likeness to God.
THEREFORE, we must describe God analogically through analogies of (1) Attribution, and (2) Proportionality.
Thomas Aquinas
What is univocal and equivocal language
What theory of religious language is it in
Analogical theory
Aquinas introduces these two types of lang. to demonstrate why we should describe God using analogies
Univocally
When words have the same meaning in different contexts : black can describe both crows and dogs. Cannot describe God like this because it denies gods transcendence and anthropomorphises him.
2. Equivocally
When words have different meanings in different context: “bat” is both the animal and used for a sport.We cant describe God like this because it denies creations likeness to God.
THEREFORE, we must describe God analogically through analogies of (1) Attribution, and (2) Proportionality.
What are the two analogies in the Analogical theory of religious language
The analogy of attribution: this is based on the relation between cause and effect. For example God can be used to describe both God and his creation, but they do not mean the same thing, God is good because he creates goodness. Humans are good because of they exhibit goodness.
- The analogy of proportionality: objects possess the same attribute but in different ways, words are proportionate to a beings nature for example gods goodness is greater than human goodness because he is infinite and we are all finite.
What is the analogy of attribution
What theory of lang is it in
The analogical theory by Aquinas
The analogy of attribution: this is based on the relation between cause and effect. For example God can be used to describe both God and his creation, but they do not mean the same thing, God is good because he creates goodness. Humans are good because of they exhibit goodness.
What is the analogy of proportionality
What theory of language is it in
- The analogy of proportionality: objects possess the same attribute but in different ways, words are proportionate to a beings nature for example gods goodness is greater than human goodness because he is infinite and we are all finite.
Analogical theory by Aquinas
Give three strengths of Aquinas’ analogical theory
- univocal language doesn’t work for talking about God because it doesnt reflect his transcendence. Analogies fix this as they do but it avoids making God seem human since anthropomorphic language isnt meant literally
- Religious experiences are often infeffable but people need to describe them. Analogical descriptions allow descriptions that aren’t limited by language and literal understanding
- Analogy uses human experience to express something beyond humans, whilst still being a cognitive method and giving meaning to descriptions
Give four limitations of aquinas’ analogical theory
- John Hick says the doctrine of analogy doesnt tell us what Gods perfect qualities are but gives way to make limited statements about him: “provides a framework for certain limited statements about god”
- Paul Tillich: using human concepts for gods risks distorting the divine into the finite.
- The two analogies require priori knowledge of God in order to be effective. An analogy between God and humans cannot be made without prior knowledge.
- The analogy of attribution can be used to describe God as evil, because if God has the ability to produce goodness then he can also produce evil.
However Aquinas responds with the idea that evil is not made but an absence of good , therefore he cannot be accused of producing evil as he is producing good.
What is the symbolic theory of language
Tillich theory which argues in favour of Aquinas’ analogical approach to language but rather than his two types of analogies, he suggests symbols are the best analogical medium.
This is because God is the ground of being ranscendent source of all thing which is the place of ‘ultimate concern’ for humans. He is being itself.
God cannot be described univocally or equivocally through language
We must use analogies especially symbols, believing any non analogous/non symbolic knowledge Has much less truth
He also emphasises the distinction between signs and symbols, signs arbitrarily Pointing towards something whilst symbols participate in the meaning of something.
What is the distinction between a symbol and a sign in symbolic theory of language
A symbol to Tillich is distinguishable form a sign.
“A sign bears no necessary relation to that to which it points, the symbol participated in the reality of that which it stands.”
Symbols cannot be created or changed as they arise from humanity and reveal features of reality in a manner that resonates with us. Therefore they are able to bridge between God and humans “they open the divine for the human and the human for the divine”
Eg: the symbol for God as father reveals something about the paternal character of God and the human relationship of father and child.
The use of symbols ‘enhances rather than diminishes the reality and power of religious language’
Give two strengths of symbolic theory
- Flexibility and universality:
Flexibility is through time as well as culture as the symbols are valuable as they are relative to the human reality - Avoids problem of literal language as well as apophatic language such as the via Negativa
Give three limitations of the symbolic theory of language
- Symbols can lose meaning. Over time and through culture they can change or adapt which make them unreliable and invalid indicators of god: Because symbols are relative to humans and how they resonate with our collective unconscious
- Might not resonate with some religious believers who value the factual and certainty of religion and religious language
- Too subjective ? Tillich doesnt explain how the symbols are actually involved in the reality they are symbolising which questions the relevance of some symbols and their validity.
