Religous Language

Question 1

What is via negativa

Answer 1

Proposes the only meaningful way to talk about God is to say what he is not e.g. not finite rather then infinite

Question 2

Why use via negativa

Answer 2

When we use finite language to describe God we are humiliating him as words like “good” only describe finite things
We risk reducing God to human level
These can give false impressions on God like he has a body or is male

Question 3

Name two supporters of the via negativa

Answer 3

Pseudo-Dionysius
Moses Maimonides

Question 4

What did Pseudo-Dionysius believe

Answer 4

Advocate for via negativa
Believed God is utterly transcendent and therefore incapable of being perceived by the human mind
God will always be a mystery and if people don’t realise this their idea of God will be to small
Christians must preserve Gods dignity by speaking in the via negativa

Question 5

What did Moses Maimonides think

Answer 5

Religious language only meaningful when using the via negativa
humans and God are so totally different and God is so utterly transcendent we don’t know what words mean when applied to God as God is utterly beyond human experience
Claims If you were to describe a ship by saying what it’s not you would arrive with what it is within 10 steps
Maimonides comes to radical conclusion that God shouldn’t be spoken of at all

Question 6

Criticism of Maimonides

Answer 6

Ben Davies criticises his analogy of the ship saying you could as easily end up with a wardrobe as your answers
Maimonides demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the via negative as we are no where near describing God
What’s the point of worshipping a God you shouldn’t speak of

Question 7

Maimonides problems with positive language

Answer 7

Using positive language creates questions over Gods existence
Describing him as omnibenevolent (problem of evil)
Describing him as omnipotent has issues as well

Question 8

Aquinas on via negativa

Answer 8

Rejects it and believes we can make factually true claims about God via the via positiva

Question 9

Eqivocal language and its problem

Answer 9

When we talk equivocally, it has different meanings in different context
Aquinas rejects this language when talking about God because it creates confusion - is God actually strong with muscles, strong minded?, strong willed?

Question 10

Unequivocal language and its problem

Answer 10

Words always have the same meaning
“The oven is hot” “the desert is hot”
Aquinas rejects use of unequivocal language when speaking of God because it broadly places God in the same category as humans, making him appear physical and limited

Question 11

Aquinas midway between equivocal and unequivocal language

Answer 11

Analogy
By using analogy in two ways we can broadly say what God is like
Analogy’s create a comparison between two things, drawing on their similarities

Question 12

Analogy of attributions

Answer 12

E.g. in medieval times, to establish whether a bull was healthy they would examine its urine. The urine would reveal something about the health of the bull as the urine is attributed to (caused by) the bull
Ben Davies uses the analogy of the baker - goodness of the bread tells us something about the skill of the baker as it is attributed to the skill of the baker

Question 13

What does analogy of attribution tell us about God

Answer 13

There is a causal relationship between the words we apply to humans and their creator
The world reveals something about the creators nature’s
God isn’t like us but also isn’t nothing like us or our world
When we talk of God as loving we should remember that God is the cause of all love.

Question 14

Limits of analogy

Answer 14

The urine of the bull paints an unfinished picture about the bull and this is the case with God and the world
Analogy only gives a limited understanding

Question 15

Analogy of proportion

Answer 15

Humans experience characteristics in proportion to how God has them
For example it’s like comparing your little brother may be “good at football” with a professional
Gods goodness is proportionally greater then human goodness as God lives up to what you’d expect of a divine perfect being

Question 16

Hicks development of Aquinas analogy of proportion

Answer 16

Says humans possess Gods qualities because they are built in his image, yet, because God is perfect, they possess them in smaller proportions

Question 17

Paul Tillich views on religious language

Answer 17

Believes all religious language is symbolic
God isn’t part of the empirical world and so we wouldn’t understand him at all if all we had was literal language
Tillich position is classed as the via positiva as he wants to use positive language to say something we can relate to about God

Question 18

What is the only literal statement that can be made about God

Answer 18

He is the “ground of all being”
All others must be understood symbolically, even if they sound literal like “God is good”

Question 19

Difference between sign and symbol

Answer 19

A sign points to something but has no connection to it - like a road sign
A symbol points to the thing it represents but also means something beyond itself. A symbol has a connection to the thing it represents like the crucifix or American flag

Question 20

Strength of symbolic religious language

Answer 20

Signs are used by many religions :
Christians use baptism
Muslims perform wudu (ritual washing) before prayer
Lighting a candle can comfort in a way that is difficult to put into words
In similar ways, people can convey ideas about God that might be difficult to express, in a way people can understand

Question 21

Criticisms of symbolic religious language

Answer 21

John Hick claims Tillich is unclear what is meant by a symbol ‘participating’ in the thing it symbolises
To burn a flag wouldn’t actually damage the sacrifice of fallen soldiers

Question 22

How do symbols get their meanings and is this a problem

Answer 22

They get their meaning from their culture and society and can change with the times
This shows inaccuracy and therefore shows they shouldn’t be used to describe God