R.L: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic Flashcards
“Assess the via negativa” essay
A: not helpful as cannot fully appreciate God as too pessimistic. Inability to understand or say anything. Talking about God gives us appreciation.
CA: Pseudo-Dionysius - unity can be gained once we give up attempting to understand God. Not human so we are not capable
E: Bible uses positive terms. “God is love” ..
A: cannot come to an understanding by negating everything
CA: Moses-Maimonides preserves the dignity of God and avoids anthropomorphising. Concept of a ship we can come to
E: ship is a world object, what about people that are ignorant to the concept of a ship. Does not help our understanding.
“Critically assess Aquinas’ doctrine of analogy as a way of talking about God” essay
A: Via eminentae, middle ground of cataphatic and apophatic. No univocal, no equivocal. Baron Von Hugel - analogy of attribution: dog’s loyalty different from God’s loyalty. Ian Ramsey model and qualifiers. We can grasp the notion as we can relate it to real life experiences
CA: Brummer, analogy is basically via negativa as we are asking that God is not what a human is. We are also making assumptions we are not entitled to make
E: described as the middle way by Aquinas. Bible story show god’s character so statements about God are possible. Some mystery to God while also making meaningful statements
A: AOA is helpful. Davies - baker and bread. Aquinas - the bull and urine. Good as we can see goodness in creation. Strengths - has basis in natural theology. Through human reason we can know God,
CA: Barth, over reliance on reason. corrupted by original sin which has corrupted out ability to reason.
E: the analogies are a good example of human reasoning. We have figured it what we can and cannot say.
CA: Analogy assumes a similarity between God and humans yet we are completely different
E: God made humans in his image
“Critically compare the via negativa with symbolic language as ways of expressing religious belief in words” essay
A: Via negativa better - Psuedo-Dionysius. God is ineffable, avoids anthropomorphising. Human language is limited. Maintains purity of religious discourse. Symbol anthropomorphises God into a human like sense
CA: Tilich - symbol is more accesible. Wider audience. Via negativa harder to grasp. Can convey complex religious ideas. Fall is symbolic for humans finite nature
E: Hick - rely too heavily on interpretation to describe God which leads to subjectivity. E.g. different interpretations of the cross
A: Some things in the bible would be difficult to understand in a symbolic way e.g. Jesus’ birth. Cannot reduce it all to symbols. Can still negate and get to an understanding
CA: cannot come to an idea of God through negation would not come to the idea of a God - boat. Symbols are not intended to provide
factual truths.
E: what does “ground of our being even mean” Paul Edwards - not factual knowledge so symbols are meaningless as they are found in real world describing something outside the world.
Scholars and arguments for Analogy
Aquinas: believed that we cannot use univocal or equivocal language to talk about God. Christians use two types of analogy: attribution and proportion
B.Davies: For explain he analogy of attribution Davies uses the example of a good baker creating good bread.
Baron Von Hügel: uses the analogy of a dog’s faithfulness in comparison to the faithfulness of humans. Applies to God as a much greater proportion
Aristotle: Aquinas was inspired by him. He set up the conditions of good analogies.
Ian Ramsey: models and qualifiers. Disclosure situation - if we learn enough the polygon turns into a circle and we move beyond the bare facts.
Frederick Ferré: univocal falls into anthropomorphism. If equivocal leads to agnosticism (belief of a God, but not Christian God)
Hick: analogy is good at preserving a degree of mystery. Stories of Jesus shows God’s characters, so we can age some statements
J.Don Scotus: anaolgy is to vague and leaves us unable to understand God or his actions
Analogy=negative: some may argue that the analogy of proportion takes us no further than negative theology as if God is infinity greater we will never understand.
Barth: argues that analogy in general is mistaken because we cannot approach God by means of language. We need revelation.
MacQuarrie: analogy is a way that seems to give us assurance that our talk is not just empty
“Analogy is a much more useful approach to religious language than the via negativa” essay
A: Aquinas described it as the via eminentae, middle way. B.Davies example Analogy of attribution is good as avoids the problem of equivocal language. Learn more from analogy as we. Can relate it to real life experiences
CA: the problem is that analogy assumes similarity between God and humans. Better to use via negativa as recognises that God is far beyond human understanding. We are preserving the transcendence and majesty of God whereas “divine darkness”
E: However analogy is most similar to the language used in the bible. It enables us to say some statements about God such as the stories of the incarnation and about God’s character
A: Analogy of proportion is helpful. Baron von Hugel’s example. Based in natural theology. Good as banded on reason. Can learn a lot about God
CA: J.Don Scotus: analogy is too vague. Do not know how u ha greater God is. via negativa is better. Moses Maimonides ship example, by negating enough cn get to the image of a ship.
E: B.Davies: could arrive at the notion of a wardrobe, moreover, we my be able to arrive at a ship but a ship is a human object. Gregory of Nyssa - “leaves us in a place of darkness”. Ian Ramsey, disclosure situation
Symbolic language
Paul Tilich:
- A sign points to something outside of itself.
- A symbol ‘participates’ in that to which it points
- When someone says ‘God is love’ they are not only pointing to the existence of a spiritual reality but they are also participating in it
- symbolic language, like religious language and art and music may prompt deep emotions
- It also says something about ultimate reality. Tilich calls God ‘the ground of out being’. It is the only non symbolic statement
- Tilich aimed to use positive language that says something we can relate to about God. While recognising that God is beyond human words.
-Tilich argued that ‘God is love’ can be affirmed and negated
- Avoid anthropomorphising God
‘God can be talked about symbolically’ – How far do you agree? Essay
A: Tillich’s approach relies on interpretations leading to subjectivity - “God is love”. Cross is subjective. Changed after time periods. Symbolised something different in medieval times . May only mean something to someone who is educated. Hick: overemphasises the aesthetic, artistic…
CA: Tillich: although symbols were constructed by human language and culture, the objective meaning behind them always points to a transcendent reality, beyond human subjectivity. What the symbol refers to does not change
E: Ambiguity to begin with/ ‘Ground of our being’ - difficult to deduce a precise theological meaning
A: William Alston: doctrines in the bible have objective meaning. Have to be interpreted as true. Religious language should not be deduced to just symbols
CA: However, Tillich would counter this argument by asserting that all
religious language and its primary use is not always to convey factual truths but to instead provide a framework to understand God more. Moreover Tillich believed that the creation story and the Fall can be understood as symbolising the finite nature of human
E: Paul Edwards: symbols do not convey any factual knowledge and are therefore meaningless. Don’t know whether symbols are appropriate - “God is a bad tempered old woman” - affirmed and negated. Symbols are found in real world so cannot talk about something outside of the world
Arguments and scholars for symbol
Against:
- Logical positivist : the connection to the high/ divine is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Cannot verify symbols so there is no way of knowing if symbols are appropriate
- Religious language in the bible is clearly not symbolic. Jesus being born?
-Paul Edwards: symbols are meaningless (non-cog) because they cannot be verified or falsified -
- William Alston: argues that some Christian doctrines such as Heaven and Hell have to be taken as factual. For Alston, an objective factual content is required for religious language.
- However, Tilich would counter this argument by asserting that all
religious language and its primary use is not alway to convey factual truths but to instead
provide a framework to understand God more. Moreover Tilich believed that the creation
story and the Fall can be understood as symbolising the finite nature of human
- Paul Edwards: symbols do not convey any factual knowledge and are therefore meaningless. Symbols re found in real world so cannot talk about something outside of the world
- Hick: Tillich overemphasises the aesthetic, artistic nature of religious symbolism, making it subjective. Tillich doesn’t explain participation. There isn’t a way of knowing if our use of symbolic language is appropriate. A non-religious person would interpret ‘God is love’ as a sign
- Some people have criticised Tilich’s theory as being too subjective
For:
- Can take us further than the apophatic way as it at least allows us to say something about God while avoiding anthropomorphism.
- Tilich’s theory successfully captures the feature if religious meaning most important to religious believers. When a Christian looks at a crucifix or prays they are have deep spiritual experiences which is significant and meaning to them
- Randall: Symbols are noncognitive and non-representative. It doesn’t make sense to talk of them being true or false. Religion is a human activity that contributes to human culture. God is an intellectual symbol for what we feel to be divine. God is another word for an aspect of our psyche.
-MacQuarrie: there is no difference between a symbol and a sign
