Religious Language ~ Philosophy of Religion

Key Terms:

  • Agnosticism: the view that there is insufficient evidence for God or the view that God cannot be known.
  • Truth-claim: a statement that asserts something is factually true
  • Apophatic way (via negativa): a way of speaking about God and using theological ideas using only terms that say what God is not.
  • Cataphatic way (via positiva): a range of ways when speaking about God and theological ideas using only terms to say what God is.
  • Univocal language: The idea that words have the same meaning at all times
  • Equivocal language: The idea that the same word is used with two completely different meanings.
  • Analogy: a comparison made between one thing and another in an effort for better understanding.
  • Symbol: A word or other kind of representation used to stand for something and to shed light on its meaning.
  • Cognitive: Statements about God that can be known to be either true or false
  • Non-cognitive: Statements about God that are not subject to truth or falsity.

Spec Requires:

  • Apophatic Way (via negativa) - the argument that theological language is best approached by negation
  • Cataphatic Way (via positiva) - the understanding of religious language in terms of analogy, with references to AQUINAS' analogy of attribution and analogy of proper proportion.
  • Symbol - the understanding of the religious expression in terms of symbol, with reference to TILLICH'S view of theological language as almost entirely symbolic.

Each of the approaches speaking about God claims that religious statements are to some extent cognitive as opposed to non-cognitive. However, when words are used to describe God, do they mean exactly the same as they would mean in their normal contexts? This would be to use the words univocally. Or do they mean something very different when describing God? This would be to use the words equivocally.

Apophatic Way (via negativa):

This approach claims that because words are unable to adequately describe God, the only possible statements that can be made are negative statements, meaning statements about what God is not.

God as 'beyond description:'

God is beyond our ability to describe. Just as in Judaism where the of God is not uttered and in Islam where picturing God is forbidden, the via negativa is aware of the danger of using the human language of God. When we say 'God is Good' we cannot help but understand the word 'good' in terms of human goodness. Yet God is not 'good' in the human sense as his goodness is beyond comprehension. The same is true for all God's attributes. All words when applied to God are equivocal.

Initially, the apophatic way (via negativa) came from Platonic philosophers who realised the Form of the Good was beyond description .

5th-century writer, PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS believed that God was beyond assertion. He was influenced by PLATO and was aware of the limits of our senses as well as our language. To try to make positive statements about God would be to risk an anthropomorphic idea of God. Hence only negative terms can preserve the mystery and 'otherness' of God.

MOSES MAIMONIDES argued that the only positive statement that can be made about God is that he exists. All other descriptors of God have to be negative in order to ensure that we are not being improper or disrespectful.

EVALUATION of the Apophatic Way (via negativa):

[+] Following the apophatic way is a much more respectful approach. It recognises that God is transcendent and wholly other to the human realm.

[+] This approach compliment how religious experience is perceived by those who experience them, particularly in mysticism. As WILLIAM JAMES observes, religious experiences are ineffable; they cannot be described using ordinary language.

[+] The apophatic way recognises that we have to go beyond everyday experiences and language in order to encounter God. It doesn't place a limit on God within the physical world. It is a way of conveying the essential otherness and mystery of God and underlining the belief that God is not like us.

[+] Via negativa applies equally well in different cultures and time periods if history. The equivocal language is understandable and means the same things across cultures and generations.

[-] It is incredibly limited in gaining knowledge of God as well as being incredibly long-winded by the use of terms of what God is not rather than the straightforward, positive statements of what God is.

[-] The apophatic way is not a true reflection of how religious believers speak or thing of God. The scriptures of all major faiths describe God in positive terms.

[-] W.R. INGE argued that denying any description to God leads to the annihilation of God where we potentially lose the connection between God and the world. FLEW'S argument of falsification would seem to support this view.

The apophatic way gives very limited knowledge of God. First, it may be a matter of debate which attributes we wish to claim that God is not. It is said that 'God is not evil' and 'God is not weak.' Equally, we could say 'God is not green' or 'God is not a cat.' In addition to this, even if we do agree on the attributes. it seems that little is actually being said. There are many things that could be described as not evil and not weak. This suggests in order to gain knowledge of God we would need to use an alternative model, such as an analogy. This would enable us to make statements about God cautiously and positively. However, in doing so, it is important to preserve the insight given to us by the via negativa that God is fundamentally beyonf description and any language used to describe him is used cautiously.

Cataphatic Way (via positiva)

This approach argues that positive statements can be made about God. AQUINAS' theory of analogy, which is an example of the via positiva, sits between univocal and equivocal theories of language.

We use analogies to help people understand something they are unfamiliar with, by comparing it to something are familiar with. For instance, when describing God's goodness, it is like human goodness but at a greater level.

AQUINAS argues that language applied to God is not literal but is analogical. He understands this as happening in two ways:

The analogy of attribution:

The words that we apply to human beings are related to how words are applied to God because there is a casual relationship between these two sets of qualities. Our qualities such as love, power and wisdom are reflections of those qualities of God. AQUINAS uses an example to illustrate this. In medieval times, it was believed that if a creature's urine was healthy then the creature that produced the urine also must be healthy so; 'if the urine is good, then the bull is good.' The bull, after all, produced the urine. Likewise, by examining human love, wisdom or power, we may see a reflection of those divine attributes in God as he is the creator of humanity.

The analogy of proper proportion:

The extent to which a being can be said to have certain properties is in proportion to the type of being we are describing. For example, to say that a 10-year old is a good footballer is different from saying that an England international is a good footballer. When we say that a human is 'good,' we are speaking of a finite being. When describing God, we are speaking of an infinite being so the 'goodness' is in proportion to that.

JOHN HICK on analogy:

HICK develops AQUINAS' example of analogy of proper proportion using the example of the term, 'faithfulness.' Just as we might see a dog's faithfulness as smaller or more limited than human faithfulness. However, our faithfulness is vastly smaller when compared to the faithfulness of God.

EVALUATION of the Cataphatic Way (via positiva)

[+] The theory manages to avoid two of the key errors that theories in religious language make. It is not univocal so avoids speaking anthropomorphically of God as well not being equivocal so avoids the agnosticism that comes with this approach.

[-] Some argue that speaking of God using analogy is unhelpful because we have to translate analogies into univocal language before they mean anything. We have to know how God's love relates to human love before we understand meaningfully. This method of speaking leaves an unclear picture of God, where we know some aspects of the nature of God but not a great deal.

AQUINAS, among others, answer this objection of towards the obscure nature of analogy by saying that there us nothing wrong with accepting God as mysterious and that our knowledge of him is limited, as long as the believer understands enough to be able to worship. The 'otherness' of God, described by OTTO as, 'mysterium tremendum et fascinans' (a fearful and fascinating mystery), is something language ought to convey, not disguise.