Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Religious Language - Coggle Diagram
Religious Language
Cataphatic way - via positiva
argues that positive statements can be made about god
aquinas' theory of analogy which is an example of via positiva sits between univocal and equivocal theories of language
univocal - words when applied to god have the same meaning that they have in their normal context therefore risks making god sound human
analogy - words when applied to god have a partial resemblance to their normal use
equivocal - words when applied to god have a completely different meaning from their normal use
we use analogies in everyday speech to help people to understand something they are unfamiliar with by comparing it to something they are familiar with
when describing gods goodness it is like human goodness but at a greater level
aquinas on analogy
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 causal relationship between the two sets of qualities
our qualities such as love and wisdom are reflections of those qualities of god
aquinas uses an interesting example -'if the urine is good then the bull is good' - the bull after all is the cause of the urine
likewise by examining human love wisdom or power we may see a pale reflection of those divine attributes
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
to say that a 10 year old is a good footballer is different to 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
john hick develops aquinas' example of analogy of proper proportion using the example of the term faithfulness
just as we might see a dogs faithfulness as smaller or more limited than human faithfulness so too our faithfulness is vastly smaller when compared to the faithfulness of god
assessing
strenghts
the theory manages to avoid two of the key errors that theories in religious language can make - it is not univocal so avoids speaking anthropomorphically of god - it is not equivocal so avoids the agnosticism that comes with this approach
the method of analogy which invites us to describe god in visual terms is not dissimilar to the method that jesus used in describing the kingdom of god - he taught in parables that began with the phrase 'the kingdom of god is like...'
aquinas may be right to argue that if language cannot be used at all of god then we are not able to do theology or philosophy as discussion relies on words having at least some positive meaning
weaknesses
linked to this some critics of analogy are concerned that in order to understand the word that is being applied to god we have to translate that word into univocal language first
indeed swinburne has argued that religious statements are not analogical but are univocal - the meaning remains in contact with the everyday meaning but is stretched
the theory of analogy does allow some picturing in a way that the via negative does not but with this comes the danger that in picturing an aspect of god we are interpreting on an individual level
'god is my shepherd' may be imagined and understood differently by different people
it is not always easy to know how far the meaning is stretched
analogy tells us that 'god is love' is not the same as human love but is not completely different
how far are we to stretch the meaning?
hence it may be that analogy only provides a little knowledge of god
key terms
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
univocal - the idea that words have the same meaning at all times
equivocal - the idea that the same word is used with two completely different meanings
Apophatic way - via negativa
god as 'beyond description'
god is beyond our ability to decribe
via negativa is aware that the danger of using human language of god is that we will imagine or picture our human version of the word we use
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 this sense his goodness is beyond our comprehension - the same is true of all gods attributes
all words when applied to god are equivocal
the idea that the only way of speaking about god and religious idea is through negative terms, what god is not
key thinkers
initially the apophatic way came from platonic philosophers who realised that the form of the good was beyond description
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 mustery and otherness of god
Moses Maimonides argued for the use of via negativa in his Guide for the Perplexed
the only positive statement that can be made about god is that he exists
all other descriptions of god must be negative so as to ensure that we are not being improper or disrespectful
he argues that the negative can bring us some knowledge on god
he uses the example of a ship - if we say that the ship is not an accident, not a mineral, not a plant, etc then he argues that by the tenth statement we will have some knowledge of what a ship is
in the same way via negativa allows us to gain some knowledge of god
assessing
strengths
any language that is used of god is inevitably pictured by its hearers in human terms
this reduces god to human level
the apophatic way prevents anthropomorphic representations of god
following from this it can be argued that the apophatic way is hence more respectful in its approach
it recognises that god is transcendent and wholly other to human realm
this approach fits with how religious experiences are perceived by those who experience them - particularly in mysticism
as william james observes religious experiences are ineffable - they cannot be described in ordinary language
weaknesses
even if the apophatic way does give some knowledge of god it is incredibly limited in what can be known
it is not clear from Maimonides' example that a ship can be described in the way he maintains
it is even less likely that this method can bring any knowledge of god
the apophatic way is not a true reflection of how religious believers speak or think about god
the scriptures of all major faiths describe god in positive terms
the apophatic way means that the believer has no means of communicating with the non believer about the subject of god
WR Inge argued that denying any description to god leads to an annihilation of god where we potentially lose the connection between god and the world
Flews argument on falsification would seem to support this view
the idea of a god who is not visible, is intangible, etc seems to bear very little difference to there being no god at all
Tillich and symbolic language
Paul Tillich argues that religious statements are not literally true - almost all religious language that attempts to express ideas about god is to be understood symbolically
signs and symbols
for Tillich there is a difference between signs and symbols
a sign such as a red traffic light points to something
a symbol participates in that to which it points
e.g. a flag does not merely act as a sign - for many people it represents the nation involved, likewise the poppy doesnt just point out that people lost their lives in some way it is part of remembrance day and it adds meaning
symbolic language and art
we cannot speak literally of god - god is not part of the empirical world and thus cant be represented by literal language - the only statement that can be used of god is that he is the 'ground of being' or 'being itself' the source of everything - all other sentences must be understood symbolically
the symbolic words we ascribe to god cannot be random or invented - Tillich is influenced by Jung in suggesting that they may emerge out of a collective unconscious - certainly symbols function on an unconscious level as much as a conscious level
symbols may have a limited lifespan - just as the hindu symbol of the swastika has lost its meaning due to nazi use, so too the words we use to describe god may change over time as some word pictures become more helpful or unhelpful
a symbol opens up levels of reality that would otherwise be closed to us - they also unlock 'hidden depths of our own being' - Tillich draws an analogy here with good works of art - like art, symbols enable us to grasp deep truths about the world and about ourselves
symbolic language assessed
strengths
it is argued that taking a symbolic view of religious language preserves the transcendence and mystery of god in a way that analogical language does not - to say god is good has a similar meaning to our everyday use which is what analogy is saying risks reducing god to our level - suggesting that the word good is symbolic seems to avoid this
Tillichs insight is that symbols are able to communicate deeply in a way that ordinary language cannot - this insight seems to accurately reflect our sense that the most important things in life are beyond words
the idea that symbolic language can be changed with time may in fact be a strength as it ensures that the message remains relevant to its changing cultural context
weaknesses
it is not clear how a symbol participates in that which it points - to burn a flag or trample on poppies might be seen as an insult but would it really weaken the nation or reduce the importance of the sacrifice of fallen soldiers?
Tillich's claim that symbolic language is cognitive is open to challenge - some thinkers such as JH Randall are happy to accept that religious language is symbolic but believe that the symbols are non cognitive and provide no info about god
Tillich's idea is that symbols engage us on a deep level in a similar way to how art moves us - ultimately this works better for the arts than it does for religion - tillich is also assuming a connection between religion and easthetic
if everything participates in being itself it is difficult to see how he can argue that symbols participate in a unique way
the fact that symbolic objects and symbolic language are culturally dependant and can change with time may mean that our ideas of god will change over time or be misinterpreted
Ramseys view of models and qualifiers
just as in ordinary life we may design a model to help us understand something so too our religious language is a model to help us understand god - these models also have qualifiers with them - these are words that show us how to use the model or specify under what conditions the model might apply
in the phrase 'heavenly father' the word father is a model that helps us to understand the concept of god - the word heavenly is a qualifier - we must not understand god as an earthly father he is a very different type