religious language (early)

Question 1

univocal and equivocal

Answer 1

univocal: where a word has one meaning.

Equivocal Language: where a word has multiple meanings.

Question 2

whats the other way of saying via negativa

Answer 2

apophatic way

Question 3

two scholars for via negativa

Answer 3

pseudo-dionysis

maimonides

Question 4

dionysius on relig language

four

Answer 4

beyond our ability to describe god

anthropomorphising him

apophatic way

cloud of unknowing

Question 5

cloud of unknowing

Answer 5

blocks understanding of god so cannot make positive statments

Question 6

dionysius’ example for negative language

Answer 6

block of stone/marble

inside block is statue so have to chisel away to unearth

Question 7

maimonides example for negative language

Answer 7

ship - by 10th person will understand nature of ship better

Question 8

Davis on via negativa (4)

Answer 8

saying what something is not gives zero indication of what it is - could be equally thinking of wardrobe

we have no experience of infinite things so does not work for god - too unknowable

we know a ships properties but we do not know gods - how do we describe osmething that has infinite properties

will never get close to his nature

Question 9

Flew on via negativa

Answer 9

no differance between def of god and nothingness (death by a thousand qualifications)

story of 2 explorers

Question 10

who discusses explorers and death by a thousand qualifications

Answer 10

flew !

Question 11

4 weaknesses of via negative

Answer 11

scripture uses positive language

davis: ship has finite charactersists unlike god

positive langauge can be symbolic instead

death by a thousand qualifications - flew

Question 12

who talks about via positiva !!

Answer 12

aquinas !!

Question 13

aquinas’ two analogies

Answer 13

attribution

proportion

Question 14

analogy of attribution

Answer 14

qualities we ascribe to each other are reflections of the qualities of god

bulls urine

davies: baker and bread

Question 15

analogy of proportion

Answer 15

meaning cannot be the same - it changes in proportion to the nature of being that is described

god reveals himself through his creation - the world

hick : faithfulness of dogs, humans etc

Question 16

who talks about symbols

Answer 16

Tillich

Question 17

does Tillich think religious language is literal

Answer 17

no, symbolic

Question 18

two functions of symbols (tillich)

Answer 18

Point to something beyond themselves.

Participate in that to which they point.

Question 19

quote for symbols by tillich

Answer 19

“participate in the thing they point to”

Question 20

strength of tillich

Answer 20

captures spiritual feelings religious language and looking at things like crucifix evokes

Question 21

Alston and Hick on religious language as fact

Answer 21

important Christian doctrines like heaven and hell have to be taken as factual

hick: philosophical language about God, such as God being non-dependent (necessary) is not symbolic.

christians believe what they are saying is true, not just symbolic

Question 22

evaluating tillich on religious language being symbolic

Answer 22

goes too far in reducing almost all religious language to symbols.

Religious language is only sometimes symbolic. Factual belief in heaven and hell is just as important to Christian believers as the spiritual experience gained from using religious symbolic language

Question 23

explain tillichs issue of the subjectivity and vagueness of ‘participation’.

Answer 23

unclear how a flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation and whether religious symbols participate in the ground of being (God) in the same way.

not clear how the way that symbols participate in the being of God is different to the way that everything else already does.

Question 24

importance of religious language being meaningless

Answer 24

would mean it is neither true nor false but simply fails to refer to reality in either a true or false way.

If successful, this method would show that we don’t have to settle the debate over whether God’s existence is true or false.

Whether religious language has meaning is a more foundational question which must first be answered. ( no sense in debating whether it is true or false that God exists if the word God cannot first be shown to be a meaningful term )