religious language - apophatic, cataphatic, symbolic

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

• theists try and convey other aspects of belief e.g. afterlife
• judaism – yahweh is not used due to it being too holy
• Xian tradition uses cataphatic way

Question 2

apophatic way

Answer 2

• negative, what god is not
• combined with mysticism
• non cog
• equivocal, language is diff when used with god

maimonides

• in talking about what god is not, we come to terms with what he is
• building up an image
• e.g. ship

pseudo-dionysus

• influenced by judaism, god is beyond knowledge
• transposed neoplatonism into Xian context
• soul seeks to be reunited with god
• god is beyond human understanding
• human language cannot desc god, must recognise human limitation to make progress
• apophatic conveys otherness

Question 3

analysis of apophatic way

Answer 3

+ Gregory of Nyssa. we can still know god’s essence and effects in world using apophatism
+ teahan, knowing by unknowing
+ Phil of Alexandria. gods nature is inaccessible
+ stiver, language of denial leads to truth
+ 1 kings 19:18, ‘all whose knees have not bowed down’
+ Otto, mysticism (pseudo)

• Olson, depersonalises god
• hume, near to atheism
• davies, no idea what he is e.g. wardrobe
• inge, lose link between god and humanity

Question 4

cataphatic way

Answer 4

via media between univocal and equivocal
j 14:6
matt 25

• faith and reason. look at nature. see god in it. creatures resemble god
• but god is wholly other
• analogy of attribution e.g. bull/baker
• analogy of proportion e.g. violinist. god is beyond human level

Question 5

positives of cataphatic way

Answer 5

+wittgenstein, language game
+ Ian ramsey, disclosure situation (polygon) and qualified model (plane)
+ c.s. Evans, wholly ohther
+ hick, eschatological verified
+ erik pryzwara, unknowable
+ taede smedes, beyond the world, need analogy
+ McGrath, god and nature
+ pope Francis, god and nature. we reflect him
+ Aristotle, theory of likeness

Question 6

negatives of cataphatic way -

Answer 6

• Barth, via eminentiae
• ahluwalia, how are we comparing
• Swinburne, unnecessary. we use language univocally
• ayer, verification
• Blackstone, need to translate analogies into univocal lang first
• stanislaw lem, cant desc something you don’t know
• st paul, 1 cor 13:12. we see through the glass darkly
• gamwell, do not understand god. can’t use analogy
• scotus, contradiction in what he says
• augustine, reason

Question 7

symbol

Answer 7

Xian existentialist
faith and culture
god is wholly other

sign vs. symbol

• sign = arbitrary
• symbol = participate
• more like poetry than prose
• RE symbol is coming to terms with human experience e.g. cross

god and symbol

• god is true reality, transcendent
• human language is insufficient
• symbols say more to the profound spirit than conventional words
• symbols can change meaning
• symbols depend on context

internal reality

• numinous
• transcend capacity of finite reality
• senses go beyond world
• personal experience necessary to engage e.g. art

Question 8

symbol positives

Answer 8

\+ bible, j14:2
\+ bultmann/robinson, bible, lib xians
\+ Rudolph Otto, mystery 
\+ wittgenstein
\+ philips, eternal life does not mean living forever 
\+ Randall, motivation, communication, social, clarification
 \+ hare
\+ dupre, link between art and religion

Question 9

symbol negatives

Answer 9

• cupitt, RE lang is a symbol of our feelings not external being
• hick, how does a symbol participate
• Randall, symbols tell us no truths, don’t bridge epistemic distance
• logical positivism
• Macquarie. clouds as sign of rain. no. they intrinsically participate
• fundamentalists
• Edwards, no factual content