Religious Language - negative, analogical, symbolic

Question 1

Gnosticism

Answer 1

All physical material is evil with spiritual being the only good

Question 2

What is the Via Negative

Answer 2

Only describing god as what he is not as he is beyond human descriptive ability, preserving the mysticism and infinite nature of god

Question 3

What is the other term for the via negativa

Answer 3

Apophatic way

Question 4

What is the via positiva

Answer 4

Positive language to describe the qualities and nature of god

Question 5

What is the other term for the via positiva

Answer 5

Cataphatic way

Question 6

Why does the apathetic way reject the cataphatic way

Answer 6

It undermines gods dignity and transcendence by anthropomorphising him with human words

Question 7

How did Maimonides support the Apophatic way

Answer 7

Only positive statement about god is he exists, all other words for god are equivocal as humans and god are so different, we can still arrive with an image of god using negative language like indescribable

Question 8

How did Pseudo-Dionysus support the apophatic way

Answer 8

Preserves the mystery of god, he is beyond any assertion in the cataphatic way, god is ineffable so communication should be mystic and beyond language

Question 9

How did Gregory of Nyssa support the apophatic way

Answer 9

Spiritual believers can enter mystical darkness in their understanding of god, this is gods ineffable transcendent reality and is impossible to explain

Question 10

What is Maimonides example

Answer 10

Can describe a ship by saying what t is not and should end up with a ship in ten steps

Question 11

Strengths of the Apophatic way

Answer 11

• Respectful way of understanding god that preserves his transcedant dignity and his majesty
• Using the negative provides some positive about god, God is not limited by time, god is not evil
• Avoids anthropomorphising god with human language
• explains inefffabilitity of religious experience

Question 12

Weaknesses of the Apophatic way

Answer 12

• religious believers need a positive understanding of god, apophatic is unrealistic
• It leaves a very limited understanding of god
• If humans are in god image, it would make sense they share elements of the same language
• Positive is how humans understand things
• Apophatic way has to use some positives in god exists, sating god doesnt doesnt exist seems illogical

Question 13

How does Davies criticise Mainmodies

Answer 13

Could end up with a wardrobe instead of a ship, this way doesnt get us any closer to god

Question 14

How does Inge criticise the Apophatic way

Answer 14

Leads to annihilation of god as it severes any meaningful connection with the world so he may aswell not exist

Question 15

What is Aquinas view

Answer 15

He agrees that god is mystical and beyond human udnerstaning but suggests humans need some sort of way of understanding god

Question 16

Univocal

Answer 16

Words when applied to god have the same meaning as in their norma context

Question 17

Equivocal

Answer 17

Words that have a different meaning when applied to god, Like Bat has two meanings

Question 18

What does Aquinas argue people mean when they say god is good

Answer 18

Good has equivocal meaning, it is something more than human good

Question 19

What is Aquinas main method of understanding god positively

Answer 19

Analogies

Question 20

Explain Aquinas Analogy of Attribution

Answer 20

If a Bulls urine is healthy then that means the bull is healthy, if gods creation of humans (urine) is good then this is a small reflection of gods goodness (Bull)

Question 21

What is Davies Example for the analogy of attribution

Answer 21

Good bread is well baked, soft, crusty. But good bread must’ve been made by a good baker, but the baker is not good in the same sense as the bread, his goodness is different and equates to his baking skill

Question 22

Analogy of proper proportion

Answer 22

Human goodness is is understood in much greater proportion when applied to god

If a 10 year old is good at football this goodness is in proportion to Messi the best player ion the world

Question 23

Strengths of Aquinas Analogies

Answer 23

• Attribution avoids problems with equivocal and univocal language by enforcing some live of similarity between gods goodness and human goodness
• Proportion avoids anthropomorphising god as enforces he is greater than humans
• Analogies invite to describe god visually as Jesus did
• positive language must be used with god for theology and philosophy

Question 24

Weaknesses of Aquinas Analogies

Answer 24

Still limits god, if he was beyond our understanding how can we know anything
- In analogy of proportion We don’t know how much greater god is, actually tells very little
- Assumes a level of similarity between god and humans which may not exist
—-> Humans are image of god so are similar

Question 25

What was Hicks example for the analogy of proper proportion

Answer 25

Dog faithfulness is proportionately smaller than humans faithfullness just as humans is proportionately smaller than god

Question 26

How doe Hick support Aquinas Analogies

Answer 26

Analogies allow god to be known partly whilst preserving his mystery

Question 27

How does Ramsay support Aquinas Analogies

Answer 27

Models and qualifiers in analogies help to understand god, model is a human understood term that is univocal like a 'shepherd', then by adding a qualifier in 'good shepherd' we can understand god by showing he is the same but also different to humans

Question 28

how does Swinburne criticise Aquinas Analogies

Answer 28

Analogies are actually univocal as the meaning of good remains the same when applied to god it is just stretched, isnt clear also how far this is stretched, goodness is still the same so still anthropomorphises god

Question 29

How does Don Scotus criticise Aquinas Analogies

Answer 29

Analogies are too vague and don't provide any real undersanding of god

Question 30

What was Tillichs theory

Answer 30

Non cognivist symbolic theory

Question 31

What is a sign for Tillich

Answer 31

points to something beyond itself, communicating a message, like a road sign for deer

Question 32

What is a symbol for Tillich

Answer 32

A symbol acts the same as a sing in pointing to something beyond itself but it also participates in that thing, like the cross in christianity, more than a sing of christianity It symbolises meaning of the religious belief

Question 33

How did Tillich connect symbolism to religious language

Answer 33

Saying God is love god to some extent participates in that love, but also symbolises pointing to something other in gods love that humans cant. understand

Question 34

How does Tillich express religious language as bringing out deep emotions

Answer 34

Compares it to appreciating art and music which promote deep emotions, Tillich argues religious symbolic language also does this bringing out something deep from the ultimate reality

Question 35

What does Tillich call ultimate realityB

Answer 35

The ground of Being, essentially meaning god

Question 36

explain religious language symbol of Jesus as lamb of god

Answer 36

Not literal lamb but symbolic of his sacrifice for humanities sins

Question 37

Is Tillichs theory cataphatic or apophatic

Answer 37

Both as it affirms and negates, speaks positively of god, god is love affirms god really is love, but it also negates goes into the negative in recognising the word love is only a symbol and much lesser than gods love

Question 38

Strengths of Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 38

- Enables humans to participate in a deeper reality beyond language - Preserves mystery of god and avoids anthropomorphism - Symbolic language can change over time

Question 39

Weaknesses of Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 39

- Symbolic language is open to interpretation and change, becomes too subjective to talk about god, as god cant be all interpretations so some must be wrong - Not all religious language is symbolic, some is literal like ressurction - Symbols may not be significant enough in comparison to the point - Tillich assumes a connection between religion and the aesthetic -----> aesthetic has connections with religion - Not empirically verifiable - non cognitive as they provide no real knowledge of god

Question 40

How does Edwards and Wittgenstein criticise Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 40

Symbols are meaningless as they aren't factual, meaningless unless they have context

Question 41

How does Hick criticise Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 41

It isnt clear what is meant by god participating in these symbols

Question 42

How does Macquarie criticise Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 42

Symbolic language is language of the mind so depends on whose mind it is being interpreted in

Question 43

How does Randall support Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 43

' Enables us to see and feel the religious dimension of the world better' -------> However this isnt a support as he enforces symbols are non cognitive having no objective meaning, religious language is only a human cultural endeavour

Question 44

How does Jung support Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 44

Symbols are the natural way humans express their unconscious mind in psychology, it is an innate part of human language and expression

Question 45

How does Otto support Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 45

'numinous' expresses that hwhcih is holy and divine

Question 46

How does Theresa of Avila support Tillichs symbolic language

Answer 46

She used holy language in her revelations talking about her religious experiences, indicates symbolism