Religious Language - analogy +apophatic/cataphatic way Flashcards
what’s the apophatic way?
only via negative
pseudo dionysius
what’s the cataphatic way?
only with positive
AQUINAS AND HIS ATTRIBUTES
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 1 doesn’t reveal anything davies
P1 – UNSATISFACTORY; DOES NOT REVEAL ANYTHING
A: VN UNSATISFACTORY AS FAILS TO REVEAL ANYTHING ANALOGY ALLOWS US TO KNOW GOD
• Brian Davies argues that if God cannot be described in positive terms, then we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of him, which seems to deny his existence. If it does not go as far to deny his existence, certainly claiming he is “not a bicycle” does not tell us anymore about what he is.
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
pseudo dionysius human language transcendent beings
CA: ANTHROPOMORPHISING GOD
• Pseudo Dionysius: Human language is constricted to our own temporal barriers and cannot be accurately applied to eternal or transcendent beings.
Language in fact limits or misleads our understanding of God as he is so vastly different to the humans terms we use to speak about him when we say “God is good” we are at risk of picturing a God that is good in the way a human may be good, when language for God must be equivocal (Maimonides argued we risk
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE
anthony flew negatives
analogy
R: NEGATIVES AMOUNT TO NOTHING ANALOGY IS A REFERENCE POINT
• Yet one may still claim that the VN is unsatisfactory, as Anthony Flew argues negatives amount to nothing. We know nothing about God from speaking about him in this way – an invisible, intangible God is no different to no God at all.
• Analogy is a middle way between univocal and equivocal language – allows us to talk about God whilst realising he is infinitely greater; When we use words like ‘good’ or ‘just’, these are used analogically (like a tool to help us to talk about God) “God is like a father” allows us a reference point, even though father in God terms is very different to human terms
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
plato form of the good
CR: ANALOGY FAILS TO SAY ANYTHING PLATO’S METAPHYSICS; WE CAN KNOW GOD, JUST NOT TALK ABOUT GOD
• Plato’s metaphysics can be used to explain why the VN is satisfactory – as the Form of the Good, God is metaphysical (not of this world) and perfect; this world, and our language, is physical and imperfect. In Plato’s writings the soul contemplates the Form of the Good, thus showing we can know what cannot be described – we are able to intelligibly understand God through the soul, we just can’t express our understanding through finite human language. Pseudo Dionysius – “at the highest levels of human thought, language becomes unintelligible and meaningless”! VN doesn’t deny an understanding of God.
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 2
contradicts religious teaching
chesterton + davies
P2 – UNSATISFACTORY; CONTRADICTS RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS
• For religious believers, the VN contradicts scripture that describes God positively. By suggesting we cannot express anything about him, it seems to remove our personal relationship with him, as an immanent God, which is found in classical theism. Believers would indeed want to use cognitive statements, as they are certain in their faith. Chesterton – finding God through our material existence was all part of God’s divine plan for salvation.
• Because God created the world, he was revealed through it to us – Brian Davies, “the bread is good, SO the baker is good”; our goodness comes from God’s goodness
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
goodness is attribute of god
scotus
CA: ATTRIBUTION IS SELECTIVE CAN NEVER TRULY KNOW GOD
• Our goodness is an attribute of God’s goodness, yet is evil in the world an attribute of God’s evil?
• John Scotus – God is beyond all meaning and intelligence. The VN doesn’t disconnect God from his worshippers, it instead highlights his transcendent and omnipotent nature. Although believers want to think they know God, we can never truly comprehend him
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
ignore on link with transcendent w igne
R: LOSE THE LINK BETWEEN GOD AND THE WORLD AQUINAS WASN’T CLAIMING HE KNEW GOD’S EXACT NATURE
• W Igne argues the VN risks losing the link between God and the world through stripping God of our limited descriptions.
• Aquinas’ aim was to explain how predicates applied to God have meaning; he wasn’t claiming the theory of meaning was to be used as means of arriving at information about God’s EXACT character
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 3
john hick + st paul
P3 – SATISFACTORY; FINITE LANGUAGE AND TRANSCENDENCE
A: TRUE EXPERIENCE OF GOD IS INEFFABLE
• John Hick argues Dionysius is “famous for his insistence upon he absolute and unqualified ineffability of God… God is utterly transcendent, totally ineffable, indescribable and incapable of being conceptualised by the human mind” thus the VN is more than satisfactory when talking about God, as human language merely limits our understanding of God as it is relative to human experience, of which God is beyond.
• We are not losing the link because we can only truly understand God when we “see” him (St Paul).
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
VN STILL SAYING SOMETHING
CA: VN STILL SAYING SOMETHING
• Even if we state that God is not something, isn’t that asserting something about him?
ESSAY PLAN - APOPHATIC
POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
peter cole descriptions of god
R: REACH AN UNDERSTANDING THROUGH NEGATION
• Peter Cole explains that “by denying all descriptions of God, you get insight and experience of God rather than unbelief and scepticism”. This is indeed the point of the VN – by saying what he is not we come to some understand about what he is, without directly specifying what he is in human terms.
ESSAY PLAN - ANALOGY
“Does Aquinas’ use of analogy support effective expression about God “
POINT 1
analogy of proportion, ramsey
P1 – ANALOGY OF PROPORTION
A: MIDDLE WAY BETWEEN UNIVOCAL AND EQUIVOCAL
• Analogy is a middle way between univocal and equivocal language – allows us to talk about God whilst realising he is infinitely greater; When we use words like ‘good’ or ‘just’, these are used analogically (like a tool to help us to talk about God) “God is like a father” allows us a reference point, even though father in God terms is very different to human terms
• Ian Ramsey, qualifiers – words like ‘kind’ and ‘caring’ cannot be used univocally or equivocally, so we have toqualify the modelwith words such as ‘infinitely’ or ‘eternally’. By qualifying our terms, we can use analogies to express God.
ESSAY PLAN - ANALOGY
“Does Aquinas’ use of analogy support effective expression about God “
POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT
psuedo dionysius + maimonides
CA: ANALOGY FAILS TO SAY ANYTHING
• Qualifiers highlight that God is unknowable – saying God is “infinitely” greater, or “beyond” goodness, fails to explain what exactly is beyond the goodness we know apophatic way (VN) is favourable: Pseudo Dionysius: Human language is constricted to our own temporal barriers and cannot be accurately applied to eternal or transcendent beings. Language in fact limits or misleads our understanding of God as he is so vastly different to the humans terms we use to speak about him when we say “God is good” we are at risk of picturing a God that is good in the way a human may be good, when language for God must be equivocal (Maimonides argued we risk anthropomorphising God)
ESSAY PLAN - ANALOGY
“Does Aquinas’ use of analogy support effective expression about God “
POINT 1 - COUNTER RESEPONSE
brian davies positive terms
R: VN DENIES UNDERSTANDING OF GOD
• Brian Davies argues against Maimonides, by claiming that if God cannot be described in positive terms, then we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of him, which seems to deny his existence. If it does not go as far to deny his existence, certainly claiming he is “not a bicycle” does not tell us anymore about what he is.
ESSAY PLAN - ANALOGY
“Does Aquinas’ use of analogy support effective expression about God “
POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE
plato metaphysics vn is unsatisfactory
CR: PLATO’S METAPHYSICS; WE CAN KNOW GOD, JUST NOT TALK ABOUT GDO
• Plato’s metaphysics can be used to explain why the VN is satisfactory – as the Form of the Good, God is metaphysical (not of this world) and perfect; this world, and our language, is physical and imperfect. In Plato’s writings the soul contemplates the Form of the Good, thus showing we can know what cannot be described – we are able to intelligibly understand God through the soul, we just can’t express our understanding through finite human language. Pseudo Dionysius – “at the highest levels of human thought, language becomes unintelligible and meaningless”! VN doesn’t deny an understanding of God.
ESSAY PLAN - ANALOGY
“Does Aquinas’ use of analogy support effective expression about God “
POINT 2
analogy of attribution
chesterton + brian davies
P2 – ANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION
A: VN CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE THAT DESCRIBES GOD POSITIVELY ANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION MAKES GOD SEEM IMMANENT
• For religious believers, the VN contradicts scripture that describes God positively. By suggesting we cannot express anything about him, it seems to remove our personal relationship with him, as an immanent God, which is found in classical theism. Believers would indeed want to use cognitive statements, as they are certain in their faith. Chesterton – finding God through our material existence was all part of God’s divine plan for salvation.
• Because God created the world, he was revealed through it to us – Brian Davies, “the bread is good, SO the baker is good”; our goodness comes from God’s goodness
