religious language (early) Flashcards
univocal and equivocal
univocal: where a word has one meaning.
Equivocal Language: where a word has multiple meanings.
whats the other way of saying via negativa
apophatic way
two scholars for via negativa
pseudo-dionysis
maimonides
dionysius on relig language
four
beyond our ability to describe god
anthropomorphising him
apophatic way
cloud of unknowing
cloud of unknowing
blocks understanding of god so cannot make positive statments
dionysius’ example for negative language
block of stone/marble
inside block is statue so have to chisel away to unearth
maimonides example for negative language
ship - by 10th person will understand nature of ship better
Davis on via negativa (4)
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
Flew on via negativa
no differance between def of god and nothingness (death by a thousand qualifications)
story of 2 explorers
who discusses explorers and death by a thousand qualifications
flew !
4 weaknesses of via negative
scripture uses positive language
davis: ship has finite charactersists unlike god
positive langauge can be symbolic instead
death by a thousand qualifications - flew
who talks about via positiva !!
aquinas !!
aquinas’ two analogies
attribution
proportion
analogy of attribution
qualities we ascribe to each other are reflections of the qualities of god
bulls urine
davies: baker and bread
analogy of proportion
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
who talks about symbols
Tillich
does Tillich think religious language is literal
no, symbolic
two functions of symbols (tillich)
Point to something beyond themselves.
Participate in that to which they point.
quote for symbols by tillich
“participate in the thing they point to”
strength of tillich
captures spiritual feelings religious language and looking at things like crucifix evokes
Alston and Hick on religious language as fact
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
evaluating tillich on religious language being symbolic
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
explain tillichs issue of the subjectivity and vagueness of ‘participation’.
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.
importance of religious language being meaningless
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 )
