Religious Language (2) Flashcards
What are the two approaches to talking about God?
Apophatic way - via negativa
Cataphatic way - via positivia
What does the apophatic way say we cannot do?
Talk positively about God because he is beyond comprehension, therefore language.
We can only say what God is not.
What does the apophatic way say we risk if we make positive statements about God?
Anthropomorphism, reducing God to a human-like being.
J. S. Eriugena on Via Negativa
“God is beyond all meaning and intelligence, and he alone possessed immortality…no creature can comprehend.”
What approach does religion take when talking about God?
The cataphatic way, via positivia
What is the idea of the cataphatic way?
We can speak about God in a positive sense.
What are the two ways in which we can talk about God, according to the cataphatic way?
& the two thinkers
Analogy - of attribution, of proper proportion.
T. Aquinas
Symbolic language.
P. Tillich
“God is love”
Gospel of John
An example of via positivia
Pseudo-Dionysius, in the 5th c., believed what?
That God was beyond assertion, only negative terms can be used to preserve the ‘otherness’ of God (via negativa).
From the apophatic way, what is belief about?
Faith.
It isn’t based on empirical descriptions because God is wholly other.
Who believed that the only positive statement that can be made about God is that ‘God exists’?
What example does he use?
Moses Maimonides
A ship - it is not a mineral, a plant, a natural body.
We can gain some knowledge through almost a process of elimination.
Strengths of the Apophatic way
- It avoids anthropomorphism & making mistakes about God.
- It is more respectful, it stops you from misunderstanding God, preserves his otherness.
- Fits with James’ ineffable RE.
Criticisms of the Apophatic way
- ‘It leads to the annihilation of God’
W.R. Inge - Maimonides example still only gives very limited knowledge.
- Separates God from the word, leading to a loss of personal connection.
- Religion DO speak about God positively.
What is analogy seen as a middle way between?
- cataphatic way
Univocal language: same meaning as their normal context.
Analogy: partial resemblance to their normal use.
Equivocal language: completely different meaning from their normal use.
What is analogy seen as a middle way between?
Univocal language: same meaning as their normal context.
Analogy: partial resemblance to their normal use.
Equivocal language: completely different meaning from their normal use.
What two types of analogy does Aquinas propose we can apply to God?
The Analogy of Attribution
The Analogy of Proper Proportion
What is the idea of the analogy of attribution?
The words we apply to humans are related to how they’re applied to God because there’s a causal relationship between the two sets of qualities.
Our qualities, like love & wisdom, are reflections of God’s qualities.
What example does Aquinas use to explain the analogy of attribution?
Bull & its urine
‘If the urine is good, then the bull is good.’
According to the analogy of attribution proposed by Aquinas, what does the goodness in the world reflect?
The goodness in the world reflects the goodness of God.
What is idea the analogy of proper proportion?
It is the idea that the extent to which a being can be said to have certain properties is in proportion to the type of being we are describing.
E.g. a 10-year old footballer & an England international footballer.
So, according to the analogy of proper proportion, what are we speaking of when we describe human & God’s ‘goodness’?
When we say humans are good, we are speaking of finite beings.
When we say God is good, we are speaking of an infinite being.
The ‘goodness’ is in proportion to the finiteness of the being, it is to a different degree.
What example does Hick use to develop Aquinas’ idea of proper proportion?
The term ‘faithfulness’.
A dog’s faithfulness is smaller than human faithfulness - our faithfulness is vastly smaller than God’s.
Strengths of Analogy
- It avoids the two extremes (univocal/eqivocal) without risking anthropomorphism.
- Means we can say something about God, avoiding annihilation.
- Helps humans to understand God whilst emphasising differences.
Criticism of Analogy
- Still only provides a limited understanding of God as we still can’t comprehend the nature of his qualities.
- Analogies are subjective to individual interpretation.
- It isn’t easy to know how far meaning is stretched.
- ‘Analogy only gives the appearance of knowledge’
Brummer
What is the difference between a sign and a symbol?
A sign points you to something, e.g. a road sign.
A symbol participated in what it points towards, e.g. a flag representing the nation or the remembrance poppy.
What do symbols make available to us?
Symbols ‘open up’ levels of reality.
They unlock ‘ hidden depths of our own being’.
E.g. art.
Tillich on symbols
“Every symbol is double edged. It opens up reality, and it opens the soul
What did Tillich believe?
We cant speak literally of God, he isn’t part of the empirical world.
He believed the only statement that can be used of God is that he is the ground of all being.
What does Tillich believe God is?
‘Being itself’
The ground of all being, the source of everything.
Why cant we use literal language about God, according to Tillich?
Because human language is insufficient for him.
Who is Tillich influenced by, what is suggested?
Carl Jung
Suggests symbols may emerge out of a ‘collective unconscious’.
What can symbols have that it is significant?
A life span.
The words we use to describe God can change over time as symbols become more helpful/unhelpful.
What two examples from the Bible does Tillich argue are deeply symbolic & not meant to be taken literally?
Genesis 1 & 2
They are symbolic in that they represent ideas about God far beyond the literal meaning of the words.
Strengths of Symbolic language
- It preserves the transcendence & mystery of God, better than analogy.
- Symbols are able to communicate deeply in a way ordinary language cannot.
- Symbolic language can change with time so the message stays relevant.
- It reflects the deep meaningfulness language has for believers.
Criticisms of symbolic language
- It changes over time, it’s culturally dependent & subjective this can lead to misunderstanding.
- It isn’t clear exactly how a symbolic language participates in that to which it points.
- It’s non-cognitive & can’t be verified/falsified, meaning it’s seen as meaningless.
