Religious Language - negative, analogical, symbolic Flashcards
Gnosticism
All physical material is evil with spiritual being the only good
What is the Via Negative
Only describing god as what he is not as he is beyond human descriptive ability, preserving the mysticism and infinite nature of god
What is the other term for the via negativa
Apophatic way
What is the via positiva
Positive language to describe the qualities and nature of god
What is the other term for the via positiva
Cataphatic way
Why does the apathetic way reject the cataphatic way
It undermines gods dignity and transcendence by anthropomorphising him with human words
How did Maimonides support the Apophatic way
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
How did Pseudo-Dionysus support the apophatic way
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
How did Gregory of Nyssa support the apophatic way
Spiritual believers can enter mystical darkness in their understanding of god, this is gods ineffable transcendent reality and is impossible to explain
What is Maimonides example
Can describe a ship by saying what t is not and should end up with a ship in ten steps
Strengths of the Apophatic way
- 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
Weaknesses of the Apophatic way
- 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
How does Davies criticise Mainmodies
Could end up with a wardrobe instead of a ship, this way doesnt get us any closer to god
How does Inge criticise the Apophatic way
Leads to annihilation of god as it severes any meaningful connection with the world so he may aswell not exist
What is Aquinas view
He agrees that god is mystical and beyond human udnerstaning but suggests humans need some sort of way of understanding god
Univocal
Words when applied to god have the same meaning as in their norma context
Equivocal
Words that have a different meaning when applied to god, Like Bat has two meanings
What does Aquinas argue people mean when they say god is good
Good has equivocal meaning, it is something more than human good
What is Aquinas main method of understanding god positively
Analogies
Explain Aquinas Analogy of Attribution
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)
What is Davies Example for the analogy of attribution
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
Analogy of proper proportion
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
Strengths of Aquinas Analogies
- 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
Weaknesses of Aquinas Analogies
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
What was Hicks example for the analogy of proper proportion
Dog faithfulness is proportionately smaller than humans faithfullness just as humans is proportionately smaller than god
How doe Hick support Aquinas Analogies
Analogies allow god to be known partly whilst preserving his mystery
How does Ramsay support Aquinas Analogies
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
how does Swinburne criticise Aquinas Analogies
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
How does Don Scotus criticise Aquinas Analogies
Analogies are too vague and don’t provide any real undersanding of god
What was Tillichs theory
Non cognivist symbolic theory
What is a sign for Tillich
points to something beyond itself, communicating a message, like a road sign for deer
What is a symbol for Tillich
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
How did Tillich connect symbolism to religious language
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
How does Tillich express religious language as bringing out deep emotions
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
What does Tillich call ultimate realityB
The ground of Being, essentially meaning god
explain religious language symbol of Jesus as lamb of god
Not literal lamb but symbolic of his sacrifice for humanities sins
Is Tillichs theory cataphatic or apophatic
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
Strengths of Tillichs symbolic language
- Enables humans to participate in a deeper reality beyond language
- Preserves mystery of god and avoids anthropomorphism
- Symbolic language can change over time
Weaknesses of Tillichs symbolic language
- 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
How does Edwards and Wittgenstein criticise Tillichs symbolic language
Symbols are meaningless as they aren’t factual, meaningless unless they have context
How does Hick criticise Tillichs symbolic language
It isnt clear what is meant by god participating in these symbols
How does Macquarie criticise Tillichs symbolic language
Symbolic language is language of the mind so depends on whose mind it is being interpreted in
How does Randall support Tillichs symbolic language
’ 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
How does Jung support Tillichs symbolic language
Symbols are the natural way humans express their unconscious mind in psychology, it is an innate part of human language and expression
How does Otto support Tillichs symbolic language
‘numinous’ expresses that hwhcih is holy and divine
How does Theresa of Avila support Tillichs symbolic language
She used holy language in her revelations talking about her religious experiences, indicates symbolism
