Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE (VIA NEGATIVA (MOSES MAIMONIDES (Favoured VN, Used…
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
VIA NEGATIVA
-
TERESA OF AVILA
Used neg lang to describe her ineffable experience. Shows a clear lack of knowledge of God, expressed through negation.
-
-
MOSES MAIMONIDES
-
-
-
PROB is we already know what ships are. Without any first hand understanding of God, negating won't bring any new knowledge.
INEFFABILITY
VN emphasises ineffable nature of God. He goes beyond all human powers to understand & describe. E.g. religious experiences- experience is beyond...
If God is at an epistemic distance from us then impossible to talk about God in any literal way as all temporal lang falls short of describing God- it limits Him.
STRENGTHS
-
-
No need to interpret. Unlike symbolism, VN won't change across cultures.
WEAKNESSES
-
-
Scripture & revelation speaks of God positively , not negatively.
LANGUAGE GAMES
-
LANGUAGE GAMES
Using lang in its context- lang game. Lang isn't private & each lang using community is diff, e.g. community of chess players & mathematicians.
NORMAN MALCOLM
On memory: obsessive concern with the proofs reveals the assumption that in order for religious belief to be intellectually respectable it ought to have a rational justification. That is the misunderstanding Important link w/ Swinburne's Principle of Testimony. We forget that most of our knowledge comes from people so history should be no more reliable than religious claims.
On academics & God-talk: We should remember that science-talk, art-talk & history-talk should be scrutinised as much as God-talk. Science cannot be assumed to be self-justified whereas religion isn't.
-
Use of language: Wittgenstein ...lang is ever growing & adapting & only makes sense in specific contexts. E.g. rules for chess wouldn't make sense in politics. Words only make sense in contexts & governed by rules, e.g. grammar & syntax.
ANALOGY
AQUINAS
-
ANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION: attributes of one thing affect the attributes of the next outcome. Aquinas' example:if urine is good the medicine is good, good in diff ways but one leads to the other.
BRIAN DAVIES: gave example of if the baker is good the bread is good. Goodness stems from the goodness of the other.
On religious language: its meaningful even if can't be verified . 1st supported VN then said didn't say anything about God. Saying the 'living God' means more than saying 'God isn't dead'.
UNIVOCAL OR EQUIVOCAL
UNIVOCAL: When a word is applied to 2 things but words have same meaning, e.g. Zeus is a greek warrier means same as God is a warrior.
-
EQUIVOCAL: same word with a different meaning applied to 2 different things- diff contexts, e.g. racket- tennis or noise.
Aquinas- cannot use equivocal lang to talk about God, because we don't know what God actually is.
ANALOGY OF PROPORTION: the way we use good is the proportion to the quality of the things. All things can be good to their own level. E.g. person- charity & kindness & dog- instructions. God infinitely greater than us but can still talk about his goodness.
-
SYMBOLS
MACQUARRIE'S SYMBOLS
Intrinsic symbols - participate with something significant., these are symbols & he doesn't recognise arbitrary symbols to be, e.g. road signs.
Symbols act as a bridge. Symbol links to an event they symbolise connecting the believer to, e.g. a candle near a Tabernacle connects the X to a belief that God is ever present.
In religion they communicate ideas & beliefs about God to people, e.g. crucifixes, crescent moons etc. A symbol is greater than a sign. A sign points to something other than itself.
TILLICH
-
-
As we cannot comprehend the ground off our being we do so through symbols, e.g. eternal life & sacrifice become symbols to reveal ultimate truth of God.
HOW SYMBOLS WORK
Symbols cannot be destroyed. Attempts to in society often have opposite affects - more powerful, e.g. X ICTHUS was used by X"s in the Roman times.
Greatest strength of symbol- participated in an event tow which it pointed. E.g. wearing a cross isn't just a a symbols of crucifixion but - participation in event- necessary action.
WEAKNESS
They can be adopted into something different, e.g. Swastika- once Hindu symbols, now Natzi symbol.
-
-
FALSIFICATION
KARL POPPER
PRINCIPLE OF DEMARCATION: If a claim couldn't in principle be falsified, then they were unscientific. E.g. astrology & Freud.
FLEW
When we make assertions we unconsciously don't allow a contradiction or the opposite of that assertion & if we do that were unconsciously excluding any conditions for the assertion itself.
FLEW'S EXPLORERS: used the parable of the 2 explorers in the jungle who stumble upon a garden. 1st: is a gardner. 2nd: insists on evidence. 1st: gardener who is invisible, odourless etc. 2nd: whats the diff if no gardener at all?
-
Believers won't allow anything to falsify their belief claims. Therefore, God-Talk is meaningless as it is unflasifiable
SWINBURNE
Unfalsifiable statements still have meaning, e.g can talk about toys coming to life in a cupboard even though it can never be falsified.
-
BLIKS
JOHN WIDSDOM'S EXPLORERS
-
Nature of God is outside of traditional methods of scientific enquiry. therefore, os God-talk meaningless?
-
-
-
-