religious language (apophatic + cataphatic) Flashcards
brian davies view on apophatic?
• 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.
pseudo-dionysius apophatic (Response to davies)
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
how does anthony flew criticise apophatic?
- 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
plato defence of vn apophatic?
• 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.
religious believers view of apophatic (chesterton and davies)
- 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
john scouts defence of apophatic?
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
inge criticism of apophatic?
W Igne argues the VN risks losing the link between God and the world through stripping God of our limited descriptions.
john hick and st paul apophatic?
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).
logical criticism of apophatic?
Even if we state that God is not something, isn’t that asserting something about him?
peter cole defence of apophatic?
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.
aquinas analogy of proportion (with ramsey)
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.
aquinas analogy of attribution (davies)
say something about god cause of what he has created
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
paul tillich symbol argument?
• Paul Tillich , ‘Dynamics of Faith’ God is the ground of being (basis of all that exists) – we should all be concerned with this, theological concepts of the GoB are so difficult to put into words that we need symbols (tool for us to understand God)
bultmann criticism of symbol?
God’s nature is unknown thus we have no criterion, better to use negative language to avoid confusions. Indeed Bultmann states the Bible should be stripped of symbols and myths so it can be left with the true essence (kerygma) of faith
dinker von schubert defence of symbol?
Dinker Von Schubert – “A pattern or object which points to an invisible metaphysical reality and participates in it”, e.g. the cross participates in bringing us to think about what Jesus’ crucifixion symbolises: salvation, sacrifice, God’s eternal love (VN does not allow participation, perhaps less helpful to theism)
