Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Religious Language, univocal, equivocal - Coggle Diagram
Religious Language
discussion points
do analogies hep us express ideas about God?
here are arguments foe and against th idea about Aauinas' analogies of attribution and proper proportion help us to express ideas about God
against
Darwin & Dawkins
Aquinas based his work upon a number of relgious assumptions. Aquinas believed that God was responsible for the creation of the earth and he also believed that humans were created 'in the imager of God' as is stated in Genesis
D and D refuted the idea that we were created. If one doesn't accept assumptions on God being the creator the universe, one doesn't have to accept the ideas that we can work out God is like by examining a creation that may or may not be his
logical positive view
but the logical positivists (such as AJ Ayer) were a group of scholars who argued that any language used about God is not meaningful, so it is not effective
for
Platos analogy of the cave
another famous analogy used to understand a higher being
helped people speak meaningfully about the metaphysical concept of the word of forms
avoids anthropomorphism
analogies avoid anthropomorphising God (assigning human characteristics to God). They do so because the words used about God are not meant to be taken literally
ideas beyond human reference
analogies refer to things understandable in our world to help us gain an understanding go God beyond our world
analogies allow us to use things in our framework of reference to understand things outside of it
eg in the teleological argument and Paley's watch analogy, we are given a framework in which we can understand God as a designer of the world
can we understand RL if it's symbolic?
here are arguments for and against the idea that we can't understand religious language if it's meant to be symbolic
against
greater meanings
Tillich argued that symbols play an ncredibly important role in Christian faith
symbols always point beyond themselves
eg, the red candle that continually burns in a Catholic Church is symbolic of the presence of God. when the candle is lit, Christians believe thatGod is present with them
painting analogy
Tillich used the example of a painting. He said: 'it is possible to describe a painting but the description is useless without having the painting there"
Tillich believed that recipes language works in the same way. it is possible to describe God, but the description become more meaningful with a visual symbol
Tillich maintained that religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards the ultimate reality (God)
for
symbols change over time
therfore, symbols might not offer the correct understanding of God that they were originally intended to have
Tillich acknowledged this problem; that the power of symbols changes through time. eg consider swastika symbols. it began as a Hindu symbol used to represent good fortune, luck and wellbeing. However, the symbol has changed dramatically due to its association with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party
Does the Via Negative help us to understand theology?
here are arguments for and against the idea that the via negative helps us to understand theological discussions
James
: facilities explanation
its likely James would recognise the strength of the via negative as it provides recipients of a religious experience with the ability to explain what has occurred to them.
William James argued that religious experience is often ineffable.. this means that people are unable to adequately describe or explain the experience they have had
For: avoids anthropomorphism
some people argue that the argument avoids anthropomorphism (giving human characteristics to an animal or God)
Flew
: argues God into nothingness
Flew suggests that we argue God out of existence by a 'thousand qualifications.' In what other words, if we continually outline what God is not, we eventually end up with nothingness
in his essay Theology and Falsification, Anthony Flew argued that if we try to explain God by saying that he is invisble, soundless, incorporeal and so on, there is very little definition of Gpd and our definition of nothingness
Cole: helps understand God
Peter Cole says it provides insight and understanding of God "by denying all descriptions of God, you get insight into God rater than unbelief...".
apophatic & cataphatic way
analogical, not literal language
he understands this as happening in two way - via analogy of attribution and analogy of proportion
analogy of proportion
the extent to which being can be said to have certain properties is in proportion to the type of being we are describing - eg saying a toddler baked a 'delicious cake' at nursery is proportionately different to saying the winner of the Great British Bake off baked a 'delicious cake' in the final
when we say that a human is 'good' we are speaking of a finite being but when describing God, we are speaking of a infinite being. so that 'goodness' is in proportion to that
analogy of attribution
our qualities (like love and wisdom) are reflections of those qualities of God; albeit to a much lesser extent
baker and bread example
the words we apply to human beings ar related to the words we apply to God because there is a casual relationship between the two sets of qualities
Aquinas argues that the language applied to God is not literal bu analogical
the via negative and via positiva
via positiva
Aquinas believed there was a 'middle way' between the two; a way of talking meaningfully about God. this 'middle way' was through using analogies
Aquinas - the main proponent behind the cataphatic way - rejected both univocal language and equivocal language when talking about God
via negativa
'Aphophatic' comes from the Gree term 'to deny'
is based on the fundamental belief that 'God' is beyond human understanding and description - 'He' is completely ineffable
focuses on explaining the nature of God by focusing what He is not
symbol
what are religious symbols?
'Being-Itself'
T maintained that religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards the ultimate reality (God), the vision of God which he called the 'Being-Itself'
T believed that we come to have knowledge of this through the symbols which direct us to it
Being-Itself that upon which everything else depends for its being
T's paining analogy
T believed that religious language was symbolic rather than literal
He says: "It is possible to describe a painting but the description is useless without having the painting there."
T believes that religious language works in the same way. It is possible to describe God, but the description becomes more meaningful with a visual symbol
Tillich's definition of symbols
T says that symbols are powerful and they actually take part in the power and meaning of what they symbolise
eg the cross is the symbol of Christianity, not only does it stand as a marker for that religion, but also makes a powerful statement. it reminds Christians of the sacrifice they believe Jesus to have made on the cross for them
it also reminds them of their beliefs about God and his plan of rthe salvation of human beings as well as other themes, such as forgiveness and love
Catholic red candle symbol
symbols always point beyond themselves. for example, the red candle that continually burns in a Catholic Church is symbolic of the presence of God. When the candle is lit, Christians believe that God is present with them.
Tillich's definition of signs
he says that signs of not 'participate' in what they symbolise. this means that signs don't make any sense if you don't know what they mean
T says that signs only point to statements, such as '30MPH' speed limit. they have no other effect
says signs and symbols are two different things
Paul
Tillich
argues that religious statements are not literally true. he says that all religious language that expresses ideas about God should be understood
symbolically
univocal
where words are used to mean the same things in all situations
equivocal
where words are used to mean different things in different contexts