Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Religious Language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic - Coggle Diagram

- - - - In that case, how can Christians meaningfully talk about God?
        
        The three theories in this topic each attempt to explain how it's possible to meaningfully talk about God, despite God being beyond our understanding
- - - - Negative language is describing what a thing is not. e.g. I could say 'my cat is not oragne'
        
        Positive language is describing what a thing is. e.g. I could say 'my cat is black'
        
        The Via Negativa theory says we need to give up on saying what God is - all we can meaningfully say is what God is not. This is talking about God through or 'via' negative language (meaning saying what God is not)
        
        By saying God is not darkness, we aren't saying that God is the light, however. We are saying that God is beyond the dark/light distinction completely
        
        Negative language is meant to show us that God is beyond anything we could ever say
        
        This theory is by Pseudo-Dionysius
  - - - The Bible therefore seems to suggest that via positiva language (cataphatic way) about God is valid
        
        The Via Negativa approach fails because it goes against the Bible
- - - - Equivocal language fails because we aren’t totally different to God
        
        Aquinas’ solution is to point out that there is a middle ground between these options. We aren’t the same as God, nor are we totally different – we are like God. We are analogous to God
        
        We can’t say what God’s qualities actually are – but we can say that, whatever they are, they are like our qualities
        
        Genesis: we are created in God’s image and likeness
        
        Analogy of attribution: So, we can meaningfully say that e.g. God has a quality of love that is like/analogous to our human quality of love
        
        Analogy of proportion: God’s qualities are infinite – greater than ours
        
        1 more item...
  - - - The logic of the analogy of attribution seems to suggest that God would also have qualities like greed, selfishness and hatred, since those are human qualities too
        
        Aquinas’ logic suggests that God has a quality of hatred that is analogous to our quality but greater
  - - - When Genesis said we were made in God’s likeness, it was referring to Adam and Eve in their pre-lapsarian state, before original sin had corrupted human nature and caused bad human qualities
        
        he analogy between Gods qualities and human qualities only refer to the qualities we had when first created in God’s likeness, not those bad qualities we acquired after due to original sin
- - - - Religious language tries to connect a religious person’s mind to God – sort of like a religious experience
        
        So, when a religious person speaks or hears religious language like ‘God be with you’, their mind feels connected to God in that moment – and that’s how it is meaningful
        
        It’s not a literal description of what God is – that is impossible – it is more of an emotional/spiritual feeling
        
        Think about a Christian looking at at crucifix – they will feel connected to God in that moment – this is because a crucifix is a symbol for Jesus’ sacrifice. It has symbolic meaning – it connects a Christian’s mind to God
        
        Tillich is saying that hearing or speaking religious language is just like looking at a crucifix. It works by connecting your mind to God and feeling close to God
        
        The words of religious language are not meant to describe God – they are meant to connect our soul to God – that’s how they are meaningful
        
        1 more item...
  - - - When a Christian looks at a crucifix or prays, there are deep spiritual feelings and experiences which can be the most significant and meaningful thing to them
        
        Tillich’s theory is successful then, in understanding that religious language is about that sort of meaning, rather than simply reporting cold hard factual/literal content
  - - - Religion is concerned with objective factual things such as our salvation and whether we will go to heaven or hell
        
        In that case, religious language cannot merely be symbolic
        
        Alston’s critique is successful because it shows that Tillich goes too far in reducing almost all religious language to symbols
        
        Religious language is only sometimes symbolic
        
        Factual belief in heaven and hell is just as important to Christian believers as the spiritual experience gained from using religious symbolic language