Religious language

Question 1

Religious language

Answer 1

• Is language which is about God or religion. It includes sacred texts and religious statements, including everyday statements like ‘God be with you’ or ‘God exists’.
• There is a problem for religious language, which is that most theologians agree that God is beyond human understanding. God is typically thought to be transcendent, infinite, timeless – these are not quality we can really comprehend or understand.
• therefore some believe we cannot use normal everyday language to describe him

Question 2

(Apophatic way)

The Via Negativa

meaning = “the negative way”

Answer 2

• states that one can only speak of God in negative terms – God is transcendent so one cannot say what God is, therefore we can only say what he is not
• Our language cannot tell people about God as he is beyond human comprehension
• positive terms is - misleading - God is love - limited - thinks its human love -but that could be corrupted

Question 3

an anonymous thinker

Pseudo-Dionysius

‘Via Negativa’

Answer 3

• we should accpet God as a mystery - speaks in stillness
• argued that since God is completely beyond our understanding, it means we cannot possibly talk about what God is. This approach is also called the apophatic way.
• By negation (denial), Dionysius does not mean privation. On the Via Negativa view, saying - God is love - limited - thinks its human love - but that could be corrupted’. It means that God is beyond the human love. - diifferent from our experience
• “It is beyond assertion and denial.” – Pseudo-Dionysius.
• to genuienly seek God we must put away our need for answers and logic.
  -A mystic who spent years in deep contemplation - influenced other chrisitians
• the need of the soul to become unified with God - links to religious experiences - ONE W/ GOD - physical body + spritual soul are divided - needs to become one - influenced by plantonic ideas’s - dualist approach

Question 4

- A great jewish thinker

Moses Maimomides

via negativa

Answer 4

• He corroborated (to support with evidence) this argument, stating that God is beyond any description & to make positive statements describing God is improper & disrespectful
• To describe God in this way limits him to human language & understanding
• Story of the ship = explaining how one could discern the attributes associated with a ship by employing terms of negative description, similar to the via negativa.
• His book a ‘cloud of unknowing’ God is mysterius and cannot be seen empirically - links to natural and revealded theology - gaining knowldge through faith and revelation
• e.g. Buddihst - uses via negativa - whilst they dont have a God-like being they still uses negative terms to describe the nature of the afterlife.

Question 5

Strengths

Analysis of the Via Negativa

Answer 5

• Prevents anthropomorphic (relating to humans) statements being made about God -the avoidance of positive assertions about God, for example, “God is good” means one avoids limiting God to human terms, as stated by Maimonides
• Supports the view that God is ineffable – too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words as suggested in Jewish tradition

Question 6

weakness

Analysis of the Via Negativa

DAVIE - TO MAIMOMIDES

Answer 6

• Limited understanding– to only speak of God in negative terms gives a very limited understanding of God & his characteristics - BRINGS US NO CLOSER
• Using negative language does not overcome the problems of using positive language – Maimonides argues that to positively attribute qualities to God is disrespectful & cannot truly describe him – however using the Via Negativa does not overcome this. Saying that God is “not bad” is attributing a characteristic in the same way as saying “God is great”
• Antony Flew – negatives ultimately amount to nothing, we are left with no clear image of what God is

Question 7

Counter-Weakness: of the via negativa

The Bible describes God in positive terms.

Answer 7

• The Bible describes God in positive terms. “God is love” and “God is spirit”.
• God even himself describes himself in positive terms: ”I, the Lord your God, a jealous.” (Exodus 20:5).
• The Bible therefore seems to suggest that via posititiva language about God is valid=The Via Negativa approach seems to go against the Bible.

Question 8

is the Via Negativa is pessimistic?

Answer 8

• Strength: The Via Negativa approach fully accepts and deals with the consequences of God being beyond our understanding. It requires that we be humble and accept the impossibility of human language ever capturing anything about God.
• =
• Counter-Weakness: Pessimistic. Some might argue that the Via Negativa approach is pessimistic because all it leaves humanity with is a sense of our utter inability to understand or say anything about God. This helps with our appreciation of God’s radical otherness, but it does not capture the close relationship that defines much of Christian life.

Question 9

Non-cognitive language

Answer 9

• Language that is not empircally verifiable or flasiable but instead expresses an attitude towrads something.

Question 10

Cognitive Language

Answer 10

• Language that is empirically verifable and makes assertions about objective reality

Question 11

more on..

The apophatic way (via negativa)

Answer 11

• People use finite and imperfect things to describe God,e.g. Father, Judge etc
• It is disrespectful to describe God in that way - we can only say wht he is not e.g. immortal, timeless.
• Via negativa accepts the mystery of God rather than giving him flawed concepts - we cat neaningdully talk about it we dont know him
• GOODNESS EXAMPLE: Our version of goodness is limited and temporary, it is therefore wrong to describe God with terms such as goodness which ultimately leads to misunderstanding. - links to problwm of evil - why would he allow evi if hes so great- leads them confused

Question 12

Via positiva

(The Cataphatic way)

Answer 12

• An approach to the doctrine of God assumes God’s presence in nature, affirming that God is knowable in some way.

Question 13

Aquais

The cataphatic way (via postivia)

Answer 13

• Aquinas suggested in Summa Theologica (1265) that we can use positive words as long as we understand that the words are analogical not literal.
• E.G. When we say God listern we do not mean with his ears he hears us. But it is analogy that helps us know God.

Question 14

keywords

Analogy

Answer 14

• A comparision made between one thiing and another in an effort to aid understanding
• ‘Analogies it is true decides nothing’ - frued

Question 15

Keyword

Univocal language:

uni - one/same

Answer 15

• Words that mean the same thing when used in different contexts (e.g doormat, bath mat.)

Question 16

keyword

Equivocal language

Answer 16

• Words that mean different things when used in different contexts (E.G. Fruit bat & crcket bat)

Question 17

Aquinas’ theory of Analogy

Answer 17

• Aquinas agreed with the Via Negativa to an extent since he thought humans were fundamentally unable to know God in his essential nature.
• He further discuss on only talking about – via eminentiae - the way of eminence - the highest form (respect) therefore we must speaking the eminence of him
• we can talk about God meaningfully in positive terms (cataphatic way) if we speak analogically. (the middle path between univocal and equicoal language) - comparitvely similar
• Aquinas rejected univocal lang as it does not convey the greatness & mystery of God - God is beyond our understanding. We can’t apply the same word to God - analogy of porportion supports this
• He also rejected Equicocal langauage = we simply wouldn’t know what the word loving means when applied to God, so it would be meaningless to us. e.g. God is good is not the same as a good cookie.

Question 18

Aquinas

Analogy of Attribution

Answer 18

• casual relationships between the two things being described
• Aquinas used the example of seeing that the urine of a Bull is healthy, from which we can conclude (and therefore meaningfully say) that the Bull is has an analogous quality of health, even if we can’t see the Bull.
• Therefore we can meaningfully say this minimal statement; that they are ‘like’ – analogous to – our own.
• esentially the analogy vs the cause

Question 19

Aquinas

Analogy of Proportion.

Answer 19

• when the words relates to differnt objects in different proportion, e.g. a fast cat and a fast cat - not in porportion to each pther -
• This is what we mean when we talk of God as loving & faithful- it is infinitely vaster than own version.
• we can recognised god’s attributes as an anolgy that is similar to ours but God is far beyond porportion to us

Question 20

Further developed his analogy

Hick, Philopsophy and Religion

Answer 20

• He says that we use analogy ‘to indicate at a level of a dog’s consciousness there is a quality that corresponds to what at the human level we dall faithfulness’
• The quote means that we use analogy to express that a dog’s sense of loyalty is similar to what humans refer to as faithfulness.
• It suggests that while the experience of loyalty in dogs and humans may be different in complexity, there is a comparable quality in both.

Question 21

expands on Aquinas

Ramsey, Models and qualifiers

Answer 21

• Ramsey introduced the concept of speaking about God analogically in his 1957 book Religious Language.
• He proposed the use of ‘models’ and ‘qualifiers’ to describe God effectively.
• ‘Models’ refer to words like ‘righteous’ or ‘loving’ that we understand based on human experience.
• ‘Qualifiers’ are adjectives and adverbs such as ‘everlasting’ or ‘perfectly’ that help us recognise the difference between God’s attributes and human qualities.
• By using models and qualifiers, we anchor our understanding of God in human experience while acknowledging the uniqueness of divine attributes.
• It is a method to speak of God positively that does not limit or become meaningless

Question 22

Symbols: using symbols that talk about God.

Answer 22

• language is often figurative and solves problems of making positive claims about God whilst not reducing him
• A religious people use symbolic language all the time e.g Alpha and Omega or Psalm 23:1 “The lord is my shepherd”

Question 23

Tillich’s view of religous language

Answer 23

• Most famous for theology of correlation (mutual relationship between two or more things)
• his aim was to correlate (show the relationship between) faith & culture= particularly in a context where humanity seeks meaning.
• All religious language is symbolic rather than literal - therefore cannot be tested for its meaningfulness
• Tillich emphasized the use of religious symbolic language to understand human existence. - develops depending how they are used
• Symbols like God the creator help in comprehending human purpose and relationship with the universe
• as with aquinas., they both recognises that ordindary lang. is inadequate (apathatic) - humans limited - religious lang. is symbolic -
• ‘symbols open reality’

Question 24

Positives: How effectively does via negativa provide a way to have theological discussion?

Answer 24

• Recognises we must go beyond normal everyday experiences and language to encounter God.
• does not limit God by giving reference to physical world
• Shows God is not like us
• Not so open to interpretation/change
• conveys the mystery of God

Question 25

Weakness: How effectively does via negativa provide a way to have theological discussion?

Answer 25

- If someone has no experience of God, it can be difficult to know what we mean. - **God cannot** be reached by **a process of elimination, if he’s outside of our experience** ***DAVIE*** STATES “**only saying what something is not, gives no indication of what it actually is”** [***An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion]*** - The **bible makes positive claims about God**, e.g Father, shepherd etc. = ***if holy scriptures came from God then it’s appropriate to make positive claims about God.*** - **Anslem **points to God **between positive and negative claims**. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: ’***God is the greatest thing we can imagine’***,***but he is also beyond our imagination.***

Question 26

Aquinas’ analytical approaches **DOES NOT** support expression of language about God, why?

Answer 26

- Analogy is **unhelpful** as **we have to translate the analogies into univocal language before they mean anything**. - E.G. Faithfulness of a dog compared to a man, then we can understand a dog’s faithfulness is partial and smaller. However, when the analogy looks upwards into ‘infinity’ (Hick), the partial shadow is human qualities, therefore perhaps we cannot understand God. HOWEVER, theologian RESPONSED to this: - **Nothing wrong with accepting God is mysterious and our knowledge of him is limited,** as long as they **understand enough to worship him** - T**he ‘otherness’ of God; Rudolph Otto described ‘mysterious tremendous et fascinations’ = our language ought to be a mystery**

Question 27

Religious discussions make sense if religious language is symbolic: POSITIVE

Answer 27

- Powerful in conveying deeper meaning - E.G cleansed from sin - Christian’s use baptism, Jews use Mikveh - Being open to meaning could be an advantage/ disadvantage- allowing people to create their own relationship with the symbol & give deeper level of meaning

Question 28

Religious discussions make sense if religious language is symbolic: Negative

Answer 28

- **John Hick in Philosophy religion argues that Tillich** ***overemphasises*** the **aesthetic nature of symbols making it appear *subjective*** - lacks *factual content* - ***symbols gives no insight into reality*** - we **don’t know** *if we are i**nterpreting a symbol correctly***, *symbols can depend on cultural context*. = this makes it ***open to misinterpretation***. E.g Father can have different connotations (strict, or authoritarian)

Question 29

# evaluation: How do the apophatic way (via negativa) and the cataphatic way (via positive) compare as approaches to religious language?

Answer 29

- The apophatic way aims to provide opportunities for saying things that are literally true of God. = **It tries to avoid the need to *guess* what an analogy or a symbol might mean**. - E.G Saying that God is ‘invisible’ doesn’t require interpretation and it **means the same thing today as it meant for the writers of the Bible.** - The ***apophatic way is less successful in helping someone who has no idea of God*** towards an understanding about God. Also, it’s **not consistent with the way the bible communicates ideas about God,**. - A**nalogy and symbol (as examples of the cataphatic way)** also have advantages, in that they help us **gain a picture** of what the believer is trying to get them to understand. This allows people to **make their *own interpretations***, - ***Analogies** (in the form of stories and parables)* are **used to teach kids**, whereas*the **apophatic** way might be used **in the context of worship by people who already have a strong faith**.*