Religious language: negative, analogical or symbolic Flashcards
Explain Apophatic way (via negativa)
o A problem with religious language is that our vocab applies only to finite, imperfect things that belong in this world. Those in favour of via negativa believe that it’s better to accept the mysteries of God than to try to pin God down using flawed concepts. If we use these, we end up devaluing God and imaging that our reason can understand divine mysteries.
o A modern lateral-thinking puzzle uses a similar idea. The puzzle is that you are given a 10m length of fencing and asked to enclose a circle of land. The answer to this puzzle is to use the fencing to create a very small area, and stand in it and declare yourself to be on the outside of the fence. Therefore, the rest of the universe is ‘enclosed’. This is the kind of idea that the apophatic way is suggesting: by pointing at what God isn’t, people can still manage to communicate the infinity and the mystery of God.
o Sixth-Century Christian thinker, Pseudo-Dinoysius, argued that via negativa is the only way in which we can speak truthfully about God, because God is beyond all human understanding and imagination. He wrote about the need for the soul to become unified with God by going beyond the realms of sense perception and rationality.
o Dinoysius disagreed with speaking of God as though he can be perceived by the sense or as though we can reach him through reasons. Spiritual progress is only possible when we realise humanities’ limits. Those who seek God should end their need to have the answer to everything; they should stop trying to use logic and arguments. Instead they should allow God to speak to them in stillness, accepting that God will remain a mystery, and realising that until they are ready to accept this, they will miss the point and end up with an idea of God that’s too small.
Who was Moses Maimonides?
Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) was also a supporter of via negativa. Maimonides thought that the best way to convey an accurate understanding of the nature of God was to explain what God isn’t. In this way, people could become closer to an understanding of what God is, without limiting God in their thoughts. In his book ‘The Guide for the Perplexed’, he used the example of ship to demonstrate what he meant. He explains that someone could know a ‘ship’ exists, but not know what object that name is applied, whether to a substance or to an accident. Someone else could find out a ship isn’t an accident, a third person could find out it’s not a mineral and forth person can find out something else which the ship isn’t and eventually the tenth person could arrive at the correct notion of a ‘ship’ by the foregoing negative attributes. Maimonides argued that those who give God attributes lack knowledge on their creator and will eventually lose their belief in him as well.
Explain Cataphatic way (via positiva)
o In his book Summa Theologica he explained that we can make positive claims about God with analogical applications. Aquinas wasn’t suggesting that analogy could be a good way of communicating about God, but was saying that we should remember that this is what we are already doing whenever we make positive claims.
o If people speak about God listening to us, for example, we should remember we are speaking in analogy as the Bible interpretation of God doesn’t have physical ears and doesn’t need people to make a sound when they speak to him.
o Sometimes, we use words for two different things in a way that is univocal- which means the same words are used in the same way, for example when we talk about a bath mat and a doormat.
o Sometimes, we use words for two different things in a way that is equivocal- which means the same word is used in two completely different ways, such as when we talk about a dining table and a periodic table. In different contexts, the word has an entirely different meaning.
o Aquinas rejected using univocal language as it devalues God’s greatness and rejected equivocal as well because it’s not helpful in communicating about God.
Which 2 sections did Aquinas divide analogies into?
- Analogy of attribution
2. Analogy of proportionality
What is analogy of attribution? (Aquinas)
Analogy of attribution- where there’s a causal relationship between the two things being described. He believed when we should speak of God, for example, we should think about the casual relationship here and realise that God doesn’t only display love but is the cause of all love. Aquinas made the distinction between God being good, wise and loving in his essence, whereas everything else is good or wise or loving because it participates in the essence of God.
What is analogy of proportionality? (Aquinas)
Analogy of proportionality- where the words relate to objects that are different in proportion. For example, when we say a toddler is clever and a scientist is clever, we mean the toddler is clever compared to other toddlers and the scientist is cleverer than other scientists. Aquinas thought that we can use terms such as ‘loving’ and ‘faithful’ when we speak of God, but we have to recognise that God’s attributes such as love are greater than our own.
John Hick, in his book ‘Philosophy of religion’, gives a example to illustrate the idea of analogy of proportionality. When we say a pet dog and a friend is ‘faithful’, we are speak analogically as obviously there’s a difference between a dog’s attitude and a man’s, and one is indefinitely superior to the other in respect of responsibility, self-conscious deliberation and the relating of attitudes to moral purposes and ends.
Explain Ramsey, models and qualifiers
- -20th century philosopher Ian Ramsey explained in his book ‘Religious language’ that the way in which religious language could usefully describe God is by using the terms ‘models’ and ‘qualifiers’.
- -We use ‘models’ when we speak of God, using words such as ‘righteous’ or ‘loving’- these are words that we understand because we have experienced it in our life. But, to ensure that we don’t limit God and recognise that his attributes are unlike our own, we also need to use ‘qualifiers’. These are adjectives and adverbs such as ‘everlasting’ or ‘perfectly’. We might not understand exactly the nature of God, because qualifiers are in many ways beyond our imagination, but it is intended to be a method of speaking about God positively that aims to avoid either limiting God or speaking incomprehensibly.
Explain using symbols to talk about God
o Symbols is another way for understanding how religious language might be used to say positive things about God.
o Religious people often use language symbolically when they’re talking about their relationship with God. They might say that God ‘listened’ to their prayers, although they believe God has no body and, therefore, no ears. The figurative, symbolic use of language helps to create short cuts, but it can also cause problems if it’s not clear whether a phrase is meant as a symbolic metaphor or whether it’s meant literally.
o People also use symbols instead of language, to convey feelings, or to identify themselves as members of a particular group of believers so that they can be easily recognised by others. For example, Buildings with the Christen Cross on them imply they are a church.
Who is Paul Tillich?
- -He was a follower of Aquinas’ teaching on via negative as he claimed literal language for God is unhelpful and conveys a false impression of God’s nature.
- -Tillich was critical of the traditional ways of understanding and describing God as a being with characteristics such as the omni-words. For him, these descriptions suggest God is ‘a being’, which begs the question of who created God and brought him into existence. God can’t be the ultimate source of all beings if he’s a being too. Tillich understood God to be ‘Being’ itself, he is the reason why anything and everything else exists.
- -Tillich argued the problem with believing God an existing being is that it doesn’t answer existential doubt (wondering whether we have any purpose in the universe). We end up, as is symbolised by Jesus on the cross, with human anxiety and fear of our own morality and feeling that God has forsaken us.
- -For Tillich, to speak of the ‘existence’ of God as symbolic solves the ultimate existential question.
How do the apophatic way (via negativa) and the cataphatic way (via positive) compare as approaches to religious language?
- -The apophatic way aims to provide opportunities for saying things that are literally true of God. It tries to avoid the need to guess what an analogy or a symbol might mean. Saying that God is ‘invisible’ doesn’t require interpretation and it means the same thing today as it meant for the writers of the Bible.
- -The apophatic way is less successful in helping someone who has no idea of God towards an understanding of what religious believers mean when they are talking about God. Also, it’s not consistent with the way the bible communicates ideas about God, where there’s analogy; poetry, truth-claims and all kinds of other positive statements of God alongside passages that covey God’s otherness.
- -Analogy and symbol (as examples of the cataphatic way) also have advantages, in that they help us gain a picture of what the believer is trying to get them to understand. This allows people to make their own interpretations, however this is also problematic if there’s too much diversity of understanding that could lead to conflict on who’s right and wrong.
- -In practice, religious believers tend to use a range of methods depending on the context in which the communication is happening. Analogies (in the form of stories and parables) are used to teach kids, whereas the apophatic way might be used in the context of worship by people who already have a strong faith.
Does the apophatic way (via negativa) provide an effective method for theological discussion?
- -Those in favour of via negaitva argue it doesn’t put limits on God (by using words that link to our physical world), it’s a way of conveying the essential otherness and mystery of God, and underlining the belief that God isn’t like us.
- -Via negativa can be seen being true by definition and not needing interpretation. Unlike symbolism or analogy, via negativa applies equally well in different cultures and in different periods of history. Unlike figurative language which requires interpretation, we can say things that are understandable and mean the same things across cultures and generations. E.g. maths is true at every time and place. 2+2=4 was correct thousands of years ago and still is today.
- -Critics of via negativa argue speaking of God in this way isn’t helpful for those who have no experience of God or know who he is. E.g. saying white is the opposite of black doesn’t give much help to someone who has never seen or has no concept of ‘white’. God can’t be reached by a process of elimination if he is outside of our experience.
- -In his book ‘An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion’, Brian Davis said if something was in my room and I reject every suggestion you make as to what is in my room, than you will get no idea at all about what is in my room.
- -Davis also criticises Maimonides’ example of a ship, arguing that someone could equally well be thinking of a wardrobe or a coffin, rather than a ship. Maimonides’ method of arriving at the ‘right answer’ is therefore unlikely to lead one in the right direction at all.
- -Another criticism for Maimonides is that when we try to arrive at something by a process of elimination, we need to know before we start what the different possibilities are so that we can know what we have left when the alternatives have been crossed off. Therefore via negativa might not work for some who know nothing of God.
Do Aquinas’ analogical approaches support effective expression of language about God?
- -Some people argue that using analogies to speak of God is wrong as the analogies need to be translated into univocal language before they mean anything. We need to know how God’s love relates to human love before we understand anything. This method of speaking about God still leaves us with an unclear idea, where we know something about the nature of God, but not a lot.
- -Aquinas answers this objection saying that there’s nothing wrong with accepting that God’s mysterious and that our knowledge of him is limited, as long as the believer understands enough to be able to worship.
- -The ‘otherness’ of God, described by Rudolf Otto as ‘a fearful and fascinating mystery’ (in his book ‘The idea of the Holy’) is something that our language ought to convey not disguise.
- -When Jesus was teaching, he often used analogy in order to communicate a message. God’s influence on earth is described by Jesus as a ‘Kingdom’. Which is something compared with a mustard seed in order to communicate ideas about its ability to grow. Jesus described people who have fallen away from God’s teaching as being analogical to lost sheep and lost coins. Jesus teaches about neighbourliness by giving a story about a Good Samaritan.
Can religious discourse be comprehensible if religious language is understood as symbolic?
- -John Hick in his book ‘Philosophy of Religion’ argues Tillich over-emphasises the aesthetic, artistic nature of the religious symbol, making it appear very subjective and open to every kind of interpretation. Tillich’s view suggests that there’s no factual content in religious language and that it’s an appeal to an emotional response rather than a means of conveying knowledge.
- -It could be argued that symbols leave us with no way of knowing what valid insight into ultimate reality is and what isn’t. Without help, we might not know if we’re interpreting a symbol correctly. For example, when looking at highly symbolic piece of artwork in a gallery, if there’s no commentary available and no guide to explain the work, we might miss many of the important aspects that the artist is trying to convey.
- -Symbols can also be very dependent on cultural context in order to carry meaning. E.g. the swastika is used as a decoration and symbol of good luck in Hindu cultures, however it’s also a symbol of fascism in modern Europe (most famously by the Nazi’s in WW2).
- -Symbolism in religious language might face similar problems. It could be misinterpreted by someone from different culture, with the result that the symbol could be unhelpful. If God is symbolised as a father, for example, this will carry different connotations for people from different backgrounds, perhaps where father is the authority figure involved with the upbringing of children or absent.
- -But, there are aspects of symbolism that make it very powerful in conveying meaning, not only in words but also on deeper levels. Many religions use symbolic washing as a way of feeling cleansed form sin and closer to God (such as Muslims when they do Wudu for Namaz). Symbols such as badges evoke a sense of belonging and loyalty, wedding rings can prompt married people to remember the promises they have made to each other.
- -The symbol doesn’t carry an intrinsic meaning which the individual has to guess correctly, but it can mean different things to different people at different times in their lives, allowing them to have a relationship with symbol and opening the possibility for it to provide them with new levels of meaning when they look at it or hear it again.
