religious language: negative, analogical or symbolic (8) Flashcards
via negativia roots
in neo platonism, a diverse philosophy based of Plato. movements included Gnoticism, claimed all physical material was evil and only spiritual was good
how was neo platonism adopted
emphasised God was beyond human capacity to understand. talking about God as human is dispectful as anthropomorphising God.
apophatic way
or via negativa
describing God based on what he is not
Pseudo-Dionysius
argues that apophatic language should be used as it preserves mystery of God. cataphatic way, via positivia, is saying things like ‘God is Good’. think God is beyond assertion so believers should move into ‘divine darkness’. relationship unable to be put into words.
problems with cataphatic way
when we say God is ‘good’ we mean something far ‘more’ than human goodness, it risks anthropomorphising God. So apophatic reject cataphatic to preserve God’s transcience.
Gregory of Nyssa
described spiritual life as a ‘mysticism of darkness’. there is a point where a believer enters an outer darkness and into apophatic way. there are no words to understand God, he is beyond.
Moses Maimonides
medieval Jewish theologian. he claimed God/people totally were so different that the words used about God would be equivocal- take on a different meaning. but we cant know the meaning as God is transient. so he said we should speak about god by negation.
ship
Maimonides said that if you were to describe a ship only by saying what it is not, you would get to the ship in 10 steps. same way, talking about God gets you closer to understanding.
the via negativa helps us talk about God
- respectful as acknowledges how God is far above human understanding
- to say what God is not implies the positive.
- avoids anthropormising God as doesnt reduce him to humans
the via negativa doesnt help us talk about God
- Davies critises Maimondies, arguing you could easily end up somewhere else
- religious believers seek knowledge positivley
- at best, leaves us with a limited understanding of God.
Univocal/ equivocal language
univocal- language uses a word the same way, queen and stationary both a ‘ruler’
equivocal- uses word in different way. God’s love means something different to people.
Aquinas says when Christians talk of God it means something more than human.
analogy of attribution
Aquinas argues there is connection between creation/Creator so there is something that can be said about God. we can observe goodness in the world so God must be good. Davies said good bread the skill of a baker
analogy of proper proportion
Aquinas says God’s goodness means more than humans- proportionality. Its like comparing someone who is good for their age with a prodigy. Hugel’s example was that faithfulness of dog would be proportionally less than humans.
why did Aquinas using analogies
hope to avoid pitfalls of univcal and equivocal language and to counter apophatic way. claims it is possible to say something positive about God while recognising words are limited.
analogy is an efficent way to talk about God
- attribution avoids problems of equivocal language because there is similiarity between types of love etc
- avoids anthropomorphism by using proportion
- Ramsey used models to build on Aquinas’ analogy. ‘shepard’ is something we can understand, ‘good shepard’ is similar but more
- Hick supports analogy as it allows mystery maintained, incarnation of JC shows how God possible
analogy is NOT an efficent way to talk about God
- attributing smaller ideas to God, we still limit him
- analogy of proportion doesnt explain how much greater God is
- Scotus argues analogy is too vague
- problem is that it assumes similarity between God and humans. If God is completley different, nothing to compare.
Paul Tillich (Cataphatic)
uses the symbolic language. Tillich began by defining a symbol before applying it to how we talk about God. defines symbol as something that participates in what it points to- like a cross are more than a sign and have symbolic meaning.
Tillich and symbols
when believers say “God is love” they are not pointing to the existence of spiritual reality but participating in it. Tillich suggests that when saying ‘God is love’, God believes in this just as much as the believer who advocate it. he wants to use positive language but also acknowledge how God is beyond humans.
religious language
functions like an appreciation of the arts, expressing an emotion in a unique way. Tillich also says religion does as it brings something deep from within and tries to understand reality. Tillich calls this reality ‘the ground of being’, he says this is the only non-symbolic statement which can be made about God
affirms and negation
affirms- ‘God is love’, asserts that God is love
negate- acknowledges how love is inadequate .
Tillich use of symbolic language is useful to talk about God
- preserves the mystery of God and avoids anthropomorphism but communicates something deeper
- allows us to say something unlike apophatic way, symbols changing keeps it relevant
- Tillich considers religious language cognitive
Tillich use of symbolic language is not useful to talk about God
- Hick questions these idea, what is meant by ‘participates in’
- symbolic language is open to interpretation, losing meaning over time
- Randall suggests that symbols are non cognitive and have no objective reality, much like music touches emotions. only cultural.
it is possible to talk accurately about God
- apophatic way, possible to say what God is not as does not limit God
- analogy of attribution, uses features found in his creation.
- analogy of proportion, recognises the differences between humans and God
- symbolic langauge explains how God unlocks something deeper within us
it is not possible to talk accurately about God
- apophatic way does not say anything useful.
- attribution makes no sense because how can we compare when we have no idea
- we have no way of knowing how much more God is
- symbolism cannot be used in wider discussion
