religious language I Flashcards
who proposed the cataphatic way?
aquinas
what does the cataphatic way mean?
speaking of God in the positive, via positiva
what is the dilemma with speaking about God?
- How can we, finite beings, speak on someone that is infinite and beyond human comprehension in a way that doesn’t transpose a false image of God
- we risk anthropomorphising God
what are the types of language?
univocal
equivocal
analogical
what is univocal?
it is unambiguous has one possible meaning
what is equivocal?
ambiguous - more than one interpretation
what is anological language?
a comparison between two things
why did Aquinas reject univocal language as way for discussing God?
because if you say God is good this does not mean God is good in the same way a human being is Good. Good is a fixed word to describe human behaviour.
why did Aquinas reject equivocal language as way for discussing God?
an equivocal approach to God would undermine religious practices. Any demonstration about God would be formally invalid, as it would include an equivocation. Any communication about God would be severely limited because we cannot make any affirmative claims about God or his nature
for aquinas what language is the only way we can speak about God?
analogical
what are the two types of analogies ?
attribution
proportion
what is analogy of attribution?
we can say something about a creator or author from the product. Hence, we know God from their creation, Earth. Much like, a loaf of bread tells us about the baker.
what is analogy of proportion?
- a quality of something is proportional to its nature
- when we describe God as loving we mean all loving becuase this is proportional to his divine being, he is not loving in the same way a human is loving
- we can know God from humans in greater degree
what does brummer say about analogies?
brummer points out that analogies give the appearance of being helpful but we remain ignorant. We are still making assumptions of Gods nature.
what did swinburne say about analogical language?
Aquinas rejects the literal meaning of words as being applicable to God. Richard Swinburne has suggested that sometimes words could be used univocally to talk about God. For example, if God is good, this could be interpreted to mean that God is good just as human beings can be, but God is good to a greater degree.
what might barth say about analogies?
it is dangerous to rely on human nature to understand gods nature
post-lapersian theology demonstrates that human reason is flawed after the fall
who said we can speak of God using symbols?
Paull Tillich
For tillich is RL cognitive?
Religious language doesn’t have objective meaning since our language cannot directly refer to God who is so beyond our finite understanding of the world.
for tillich what is the meaning of RL?
connection to God through its symbol to the individual
Example of a religious symbol
crucifix
dove
shephard
rock
How do Christians respond to the crucifix?
Crucifix doesn’t have objective meaning but it inspires meaning to the Christian through functioning symbolically for Jesus and his sacrifice for sin.
What is the difference between a sign and a symbol?
A sign attaches a label but a symbol participates in what it points to.
What is the theory of participation?
it demonstrates what constitutes for a symbol
what things make up a symbol?
1) Pointing of something beyond itself, crucifix point to Christianity
2) Participation: its takes part in this which it points
3) Reality: reveals a deeper meaning, open spiritual levels of reality
4) Soul: open up levels of dimensions of the soul that link to those levels of reality.
what does tillich symbols mean for RL?
religious language is symbolic.
it offers new depth and meaning that can only be understood by the people who experience it.
religious language through symbols allows people to participate in God without fully knowing them
biblical language may also be symbollic
What is the spiritual aspect of using symbolic language?
RL points to Christianity and is a part of it and in thereby becomes a bridge for our soul to connect to God
RL connects mind to God and participates their being.
what did basil the great and gregory of nyssa argue?
- Humans cannot know the essence of God.
- If we cannot know the mind of an ant with their limited minds, we cannot ever begin to know the complex mind of God.
who is the main scholar in via negative?
Pseudo – Dionysius
what is the apophatic way?
speaking of God in the negative, via negativa, negation
cannot be known in terms of human categories it is beyond all signs and language.
what does Pseudo – Dionysius think the via negative allows us to do?
maintain the unknowable aspects of God and allow a cloud of unknowing
what were Pseudo – Dionysius main ideas?
- God is so beyond our understanding we cannot possibly speak on what God is
- God is ‘beyond every assertation’
- negation is not privation
*via negative allows us to grow close to God in another way
what are the main scholars in via negative?
Basil the great & Gregory of Nyssa
Pseudo – Dionysius
Moses Maimonides
why is scripture limited for Moses Maimonides and what does this mean?
- Scripture is a limited wat to know God because it was written by infallible, fallen men. (Augustine)
- it gives some knowledge but this is provisional
- Not take the bible literally
what example does Moses Maimonides give?
through describing what a ship isn’t we get closer to what it is
what is the human misconception for Moses Maimonides?
- Because humans possess a divine ability to reason in which other animals do not that has led us to believe we can understand God but this is a misconception. God is incorporeal we are not and cannot speak of him in the positive.
- to do this we risk anthropomorphising God
weaknesses of via negativa?
- incredibly limited in what can be known – not clear from analogy of ship – even less likely to bring knowledge of God.
- not a true reflection of how religious believers speak/think about God - most scriptures describe God in positive terms - E.g “God is faithful”, “God is alive and active”
- disgards scripture - sola scriptura
- apophatic way means that believer has no means of communicating with non-believer about God.
- W.R Inge - argued that denying any description of God leads to annihilation of God.
- leading to us losing the connection between us and God. Not helpful to someone who knows nothing of God.
- if we cant know God, this provides no incentive for worship
what analogy does Aquinas make?
much like we can know a bull from its urine (its healthy or not) we can know the creator from the creation
similtudo n that
what are tillichs’ views on the afterlife?
Heaven - symbol for social action and moral deeds
what is the ant reference in negativa?
- If we cannot know the mind of an ant with their limited minds, we cannot ever begin to know the complex mind of God.
schollars for cataphatic way
aquinas
tillich
what does God as the ‘Ground of being’ Means what?
God is the basis of all that exists and also the meaning behind all that exists and so material possessions and ideas cannot replace God. God cannot be comprehended in a personal way but is known through symbols.
for tillich are symbols just objects?
no- the cocept of sacrifice and eternal life also are symbollic
Maimonides main argument?
negative = closer to God (the ship)
how is via negativa pessemistic?
Pessimistic. Some might argue that the Via Negativa approach is pessimistic because all it leaves humanity with is a sense of our utter inability to understand or say anything about God. This helps with our appreciation of God’s radical otherness, but it does not capture the close relationship that defines much of Christian life.
what does the analogy of proportion mean for evil?
humans = evil so is god not more evil
no this sin comes from original sin - augustine
strengths of tillich
+ acknowledges the imporatnce of spiritual connection with God for christians. It is true that the crucifix has powerful meaning
+ hick - things are symbollic because religion is just one intepretation
+ lots of symbolls in NT for example jesus’ parables
+ Liberation theologians see parts of christianity as symbolic for social action
weaknesses of tillich
- he goes to far with symbolls people regard heaven and hell as real places - scripture
- goes agasint scripture which is real
- too subjective - no coherrent common understanding of God
- God could lose meaning over time
- Kraemer we should acknolwedge the Bible as a whole system this ignores scripture what people regard as true - sola scriptura - some was no intended to be metaphorical
strengths of Aquinas’ Cataphatic way
+ scripture shows God is in the real world
+ calvin theology mirror - natural theologians argue there are points of contact with the world and God
+ successfully gets a middle ground between equivocal and univocal language - we are like God (respects imago dei) but we are NOT god
weaknsses of aquinas caphatic way
- brummer - analogies still suggest we know God - we do not have the required knowledge of God to create MEANINGUFL anologies
- not captured the spiritual role RL language has in peoples lifes
- knowledge from reason is limited and we cannot derive how we speak about God from it
- Barth
-hume - suggests God would have bad qualities as well
through negation how do we get closer to God? (Pseudo-Dionysius)
- you know God when you fully engage with via negative
- you realise God is so beyond human understanding you maintain the divine darkness
- becoming enlightened to the inadequacy of our ability to know God and breaking free from the attempt to understand him allows you to be supremely united to the completely unknown
what does william james name the apophatic approach?
the ‘mystical approach’
explain negation ≠ privation
*saying God is not living does not mean God is lifeless it means God is so other and beyond all disinction our human language can convey
what doe brian davies argue
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.
ian ramseys qualifiers
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.
if we say God is not darkness what does this mean?
- saying God is not darkness does not mean he is lightness
- it means he is above this distinction
