Religious Language: Negative, Anological & Symbolic

Question 1

How is language used about religion

Answer 1

truth claims - asserting their religious beliefs are true
express feelings and emotions - “we are truly sorry of all out sins”
performatively - words announce something has happened or is about to happen (“let us worship God”)
prescriptively - encouraging people to act in a certain way and not in others (“you shall not commit adultery”)

Question 2

Univocal and equivocal language

Answer 2

Univocal language - words that mean the same thing when used in different contexts
- e.g. God can be described as faithful, but so can a dog
- this type of language when applied to God brings him down to human level
Equivocal language - words that mean different things when used in different contexts
- e.g. saying God is holy would mean something completely different when applied to a person or object

Question 3

Is religious language meaningless

Answer 3

• for a statement to be cognitive (make sense) it must be subject to being true or false, this is not true of religious statements
• some would argue religious language is non-cognitive, therefore religious language becomes nonsense and therefore meaningless

Question 4

Apophatic way (The Via Negativa)

Answer 4

• focuses on explaining the nature of God by focusing on what God is not
• based on the belief that God is beyond human understanding and description, completely ineffable
• Pseudo-Dionysius claimed “God is beyond assertion” and “God is beyond every limitation”
• scripture can give us some knowledge of God’s nature, but this is always going to be constrained by the limits of human language
• Moses Maimonides believed the Torah was an imperfect source for describing God as any descriptions are carried out using human language
• any attempt to use human language to describe God is anthropomorphic (gives God human characteristics)
• for Maimonides religious language is fundamentally equivocal, he suggested we demonstrate God’s nature by describing what he is not (he is not mortal or evil)
• So, the Via Negativa does prevent anthropomorphic statements being made about God, and it supports the view of many thinkers that God is ineffable
• however, we are left with a very limited understanding of God, and it states no positive comments can be made about God, but if we are saying something negative about we are surely implying the positive as well

Question 5

Cataphatic way (The Via Positiva)

Answer 5

• approaches language from a positive stance
• however this has issues, Aquinas argued that it is impossible to fully speak positively of God as it’s impossible for humans to fully understand him
• he argued language cannot be used literally about God, suggested we should speak about God in terms of analogies
• he recognised three types of language: univocal, equivocal and analogical
• believed univocal and equivocal were inadequate and analogical was the only one that can be used
• 2 types of analogy:
  analogy of attribution - demonstrates the qualities we ascribe to each other are a reflection of God’s qualities.
• The example of a baker and his bread, if a baker is good and the bread is good there is a relationship between those statements, the bread is the product of the baker
  analogy of proportion - suggests all good qualities belong infinitely to God and in proportion to humans. E.g. plants have life, humans have life, God has life. they have a proportionate relationship in that plants are good, we are good but God is infinitely good.
• this means properties such as wisdom and love which we see in others are the properties of God
• hence when we see these attributes in others it allows us to make analogies with these attributes, its just these attributes are far greater in God then us
• Ian Ramsey put forward a modern day approach using the idea of Models and Qualifiers, arguing that in language we take a human attribute and ascribe it to God, qualifying it to make it clear that it is infinitely enhanced when applied to God
• in Ramseys scheme, the human attribute is the model and in applying it to God we qualify it to make it clear it is infinity enhanced. This leads to a positive understanding of the infinite nature of God

Question 6

Symbolic language

Answer 6

• a symbol is something which can point you in the right direction and also communicates a much greater understanding of God that cant be put in words
• symbolic language is metaphorical e.g. “the lord is my shepherd”
• Tillich argued there are levels of reality beyond what can be known empirically, religious symbols open up a level of divine reality to us
• therefore argued all religious language is symbolic
• He draws a distinction between signs and symbols:
• signs are arbitrarily chosen and then attributed a meaning (a red light meaning stop), whereas symbols already have meanings attributed to them and are then used to represent something (a countries flag)
• he explained music and poetry act as symbols as they open up levels of reality in people, he claims the words/sounds have levels of reality beyond the obvious meaning of them
• God in Tillich’s thinking is defined as the ”ground of being”. For him, God is the basis of all that exists and also the meaning behind all that exists, therefore he argued the ground of being must be the ultimate concern of people
• the “ground of being” cannot be comprehended in a personal way, but is known through symbols
• Jesus’ life and work thus function as symbols that can reveal the “ground of being”
• also argued a symbol can loose its meaning in society e.g. Swastika is associated with Nazi Germany, even though its originally a Hindu sign
• argues you cannot destroy a symbol and often support for the symbol can be a sign of resistance (wearing a cross in a country where Christianity is oppressed)
• it could be argued for one to understand the meaning of a symbol then you need to belong to the community
• he suggested the virgin birth symbolises the purity of Mary from sin but for Protestants it had lost its meaning, while on the other hand, its central to Catholicism in a symbolic and literal sense
• Tillich didn’t question if God did or did not exist, he did not see the existence of God as something that may or may not be true, he believed God is existence itself
• only by accepting that all knowledge and thoughts about God are symbolic are we really able to rid ourselves of epistemic doubt