Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
religious language - symbols, Massolit lectures on religious language -…
religious language - symbols
via negativa and via positiva
via negativa
'apophatic' comes from the greek term 'to deny'
based on the fundamental belief that god is beyond human understanding and description
'he' is completely ineffable, which means he cannot put into words the nature of god
via positiva
aquinas - the main proponent behind the cataphatic way - rejected bpth univocal language and equivocal language when talking about god
aquinas believed that there was a middle way between the two; a way of talking meaningfully about god. this 'middle way' was through using analogies
analogical, but not literal knowledge
aquinas argued that the language applied to god is not literal but analogical
he understands this as happening in two ways - through the analogy of attribution and through the analogy of proportion
analogy of attribution
the words we apply to human beings are related to the words we apply to god because there is a casual relationship between the two sets of qualitites
our qualities are reflections of those qualities of god - albeit to a much lesser extent
analogy of 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
saying a baby baked a delicious cake at nursery is very different to saying the winner of the great british bake off baked a delicious cake in the final
when we call a human good, we are speaking of a finite being, but when we are calling god good we are speaking of an infinite being
symbol
tillichs definition of signs
says that signs and symbols are two different things
signs do not participate in what they symbolise. this means that signs dont make any sense if you dont know what they mean
signs only point to statements, such as a '30mph' speed limit. they have no other effect
tillichs definition of symbols
symbols are powerful and they actually take part in the power and meaning of what they symbolise
for example the cross is the symbol of christianity. not only does it stand as a marker for that religion, but it 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 abut god and his plan for the salvation of human beings as well as other themes, such as forgiveness and love
'being itself'
tillich maintained that religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards the ultimate reality , the vision of god whhich he called the 'being itself'
being-itself is that upon which everything else depends for its being
tillich believed that we come to have knowledge of this through the symbold whhich direct us to it
painting analogy
it is possible to describe a painting but the description is useless without having the painting there
tillich 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
catholoc red candle symbol
symbols always point beyond themsevles
for example, the red candle that continually burns in the catholic church is symbolic for the presence of god. when the candle is lit, christians believe that god is present with them
does the via negativa help us to understand theology
cole: helps us understand god
peter cole says it provides insight and understanding of god 'by denying all descriptions of god, you get insight into god rather than unbelief'
for: avoids anthropormorphism
some people argue that the via negativa argument avoids anthropormorsim - giving human characteristics to and animal or god
james: facilitates explanation
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
flew: argues god into nothingness
argued that if we try to explain god by saying that he is invisible, soundless, incorporeal and so on, there is very little difference between our definition of god and our definition of nothingness
if we continually outline what god is not, we eventually end up with nothingness
do analogies help us express ideas about god?
for : idead beyond human reference
analogies allow us to use things in our framework of reference to understand things outside of it
analogies refer to things understandable in out world to help us gain an understanding of god beyond our world
for; plaotos cave
another famous anlogy used to understand a higher being was platos analogy of the cave
this analogy helped people speak meaningfully about the metaphysical concept of the world of forms
against: logical positvists
group of scholars who argued that any language used about god is not meaningful, so it is not effective
agianst: darwin and dawkins
aquinas based his work upon a number of religious assumptions - believed that god was responsible for the creation of earth and he also believed humans were created in the image of god
darwin and dawkins refuted the idea that we were created. if one doesnt accept assumptions on god being the creator of the universe, one doesnt have to accept the idea rhat we can work out what fis is like by examinining a creation that may or may not be his
can we understand religious language if iys symbolic?
for: symbols change over time
tillich acknowledged this problem
for example the swastika - it began as a hindu symbol used to represent good fortune, luck and wellboing
therefore symbols might not offer the correct understanding of god that they were origionally intended to have
greater meanings
red candle in catholic church
tillichs painting analogy
Massolit lectures on religious language
Talking about god
Issues presented by religious language
Language in an every day sense is complex
Similes, metaphors and analogies
When we are thinking about god, we are not thinking about anything limited and bounded
When we use words such as love and good about finite things in out world, such as a good recipe, we are using these words in a familiar sense, can we stretch these words to the infinity of god?
Is the meaning of words stretched beyond breaking point that they are taken past the point of them making sense
Our language often involves understanding and speaking about things in relation to other things by drawing out similarities and differences
God is not one thing without other things - he is all other things. God is one, eternal and infinite and he is not classificable as one type of thing - therefore we annoy speak about him in relation to other things
Saying a dog is faithful and god is faithful is two different things
Ayer
Logical positivism - Vienna circle - interested in the nature of meaning, language and knowledge. An Ayer travelled to vienna and became exposed to the Vienna circle
Ayer was critical of theological language and philosophical language generally and stated that it was meaningless
Ayers verification principle - statements are meaningful if they can be empirically verifiable, statements are meaningful, all other language is speculative and therefore meaningless
For Ayer the statement ‘god is real’ is neither true nor false, however it is meaningless
A statement like god exists - we do not know what it would be like to check this claim empirically against our sense experience
The issue with the verification principle
If we say statements can only be meaningful if they can be empirically verified is the verification principle itself empirically verifiable - it isn’t.
In the end logical positivism is a powerful critique but it does not endure
Apophatism (via negativa)
God is beyond our understanding, we cannot possibly talk about what god ‘is’ we can only describe him by what he is not
This does not mean privation - ‘god is not living’ is not the same as ‘god is lifeless’
The main strength of the via negativa approach is that it is true to gods transcendance and otherness. Otto called god ‘wholly other’, meaning radically different to anything else we experience or understand
This leads to
A further strength in helping us to understand the bible and its description of gods immanence
Weakness
The bible describes god in positive terms
There are other descriptions of god as having a ‘face’ or ‘walking in the garden of Eden
This can be dismissed as metaphorical language, or rehabs just referring to gods immanent actions
In the gospel of john god is described positively: ‘god is love’ and ‘god is spirit’. God even himself describes himself in positive terms
Makes god seem too unreachable and distant
If we cannot know god in a positive way or reach understanding of him, it can be hard o put faith in him
Evaluation of defending the via negativa
Augustine is not straightforwardly a proponent of via negative, bit he agrees with many of its core principles. He accepts that the bible often contains ‘human expressions’ because that is all we are capable of understanding
Cataphaticism - via positiva
Aquila’s thought we could go further than only talking about god negatively - we can talk about god meaningfully in positive terms if we speak analogically
Aquila’s explains why standard cataphatic approaches fail - univocal and equivocal language
Aquinas on analogy
Aquinas believed there are three modes of language
Univocal
Linguistic terms are used in the same sense in different contexts. Simon is good, Nadia is good, we are all humans we are all good in the same way
Equivocal
Linguistic terms are used in diffferent senses in different contexts. I go for a walk down to the river bank or a deposit money in the bank
Analogical
Linguistic terms about god are used neither univocally or equivocally to terms about humans/creatures. When we say god is good and Simon is good, we are not using the word in the exact same sense (univocally). We are also not sing the word equivocally because it is not entirely different senses with an entirely different meaning
Analogy of proper proportionality
When we compare terms of god and creatures, we believe we construct a proportion of meaning. Gods goodness is similar to human goodness but much bigger
However aquinas thought his proportionality is insufficient to convey gods transcendance to creatures. He doesn’t think there is proportion because that would make god a very big creature, this isn’t possible because god is wholly other and the source of everything created
Analogy of attribution
Due to analogy of proper proportion not being valid, there therefore must exist a different kind of analogically relationship between god and creatures
Aquila’s thinks we can tell something about the creator of a thing by looking at what is causes
Certain effects flow from certain causes and are stamped with something of the character of the creator - this means we can attribute qualities to the creator of a thing
Aquila’s used the illustration of seeing that the urine of a ball is healthy, we do not have to see the bull to see it is healthy
Similarly as humans we have qualities like power, love and knowledge, s we can conclude that our creator also has qualities of power, love and knowledge
Paul Tillich on symbol
Paul Tillich believed most religious language had symbolic meaning rather than literal
Literal meaning is when words refer to objects or things - such words are like signs, they are arbitrary symbols that we have create to refer to things
Religious language cannot have literal meaning as it cannot refer to god, since god is beyond out understanding
Religious symbols are not arbitrarily invented. They grow out of the culture and collective unconscious minds of a religious tradition. This makes symbols part of religion
Tillich uses an example of a national flag
A crucifix - it means something to Christian’s, it is not a word, but still inspires meaning in the mind of a person who sees it - when a person hears religious language “god be with you”, the effect on their mind is just like the effect of seeing a crucifix
So Tillich offers a different approach to the via negative and Aquila’s. The main strength of his theory is that it side steps the meaning issue of ou human inability to understand god
So Tillich successfully solves the problem with religious language
Via negative vs the problem of religious language
Maimodenies’ ship example
Argued for the via negativa
Used the illustration of a ship
Imagine someone who knows that something called a ‘ship exists’ but doesn’t know exactly what the name applies to
Maimonides then runs through ten persons using examples of negative language, that a ship is not e.g, à phare, flat object, property, plant, mineral
‘It is clear that this tenth person has almost arrived at the correct notion of a ship by foregoing negative attributes’
The failure of the ship example
He points out that negative language only allows us to actually gain knowledge in special cases such as when we know the other possibilities
However that does not work in gods case