Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Religious language - Coggle Diagram
Religious language
Via negativa
This theory claims that we cannot meaningfully say what God is, all we can meaningfully say is what God is not
For example, by saying 'God is not physical', we are not saying that he's non-physical, just that he is beyond the physical/non-physical distinction
-
-
Maimonides ship
Imagine someone knowing that something called a 'ship' exists, but doesn't know the attributes. Maimonides then runs through ten persons using examples of negative language 'not a sphere', eventually the person gets closer to understanding the core attributes of a ship (God)
Negative language only allows us to gain knowledge in special cases, such as when we know exactly what possibilities there are for a thing
-
Aquinas
The average Christian may be in some danger of anthropomorphising God, he is imagined this way through religious art
-
Tillich
Religious language is not literal, it doesn't actually try to say what God is, instead it is symbolic. This tries to connect a person's mind to God, similar to a religious experience
When someone says 'God be with you', their minds feel connected to God in that moment, making it meaningful. It is not a literal description of what God is, that's impossible, it's more of an emotional/spiritual feeling
Looking at a crucifix, they feel connected to God in that moment due to its symbolic meaning of Jesus' sacrifice.
Religious language is not literal – it’s symbolic – it involves symbols which helps us to spiritually connect to the mystery of existence – the ground of being – which is our ultimate concern – the thing which matters most to humans.
Successfully captures the spiritual side of religious language, focuses on the function of language which highlights the importance of it, instead of factual description of language
Religious language must involve facts, important doctrine such as Heaven & Hell cannot be seen symbolically
There is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or false. Religion is concerned with objective factual things such as our salvation & afterlife. In that case, language cannot be symbolic
Tillich reduces almost all religious language to symbols, Religious language is only sometimes symbolic whilst factual belief in heaven and hell is just as important as spiritual experience gained from religious language
Subjectivity of symbols
A flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation, similarly religious symbols participate in the ground of a being. However, Hick objects that it is not clearly explained exactly how a flag participates
Similarly, theologians tend to think that everything, all of creation participates in or with God in some way, so it is unclear what would be unique about the way religious symbols participate in God
Participation & connection is too vague, which suggests it is subjective. Symbolic meaning could only be in our minds which might not connect us to anything beyond or above ourselves
-
Symbols change meaning over time, suggesting further subjectivity, symbols grow out of culture, but also interact with the divine (what)
We do not need to understand God to be connected to God, Religious language is meaningful insofar as it participates in being-itself
Analogy
Whilst we cannot say what God is, we can say what he is like. We can use analogical language to gain a greater understanding of Him
We are not the same as or different to God, we are analogous to God. We cannot say what God's qualities actually are, but we can say that they are like our qualities (Genesis, we are created in God's image & Likeness)
Analogy of attribution - We can meaningfully sat that God has a quality of love that is like ours, however analogy of proportion states that it is proportionally greater to our love.
-
Natural theology
Reason is a gift from God, resulting from being made in his image, this includes the power to know something of God. In this case, about the analogy between our attributes & God's
If original sin had destroyed the image of God in us, we would be just like animal, so we must still retain some ability to reason. So, reasoning about God's attributes and speaking about God analogically is valid due to natural theology
Barth - NT places a dangerous over reliance on human reason, which is corrupted by original sin. Original sin might not have completely destroyed this reason, but makes it unreliable
The finite has no capacity for the infinite, Our finite minds have no capacity to understand God's infinite nature, so we should not use reason to know God.
If we make a mistake when trying to use reason to understand God, then we could end up worshipping the wrong thing. Therefore, we should only rely on the Bible for knowledge of God
Strawman, Aquinas never says that reason can grasp God's infinite being. Through reasoning, we can also know that God has a quality of love which is similar, yet proportionally greater also
Can it be accurate?
Manages to avoid the problems of standard cataphatic language by finding a middle ground. This language would be univocal or equivocal, however when it comes to religious language both seem to fail. Univocal fails because we are not the same as God, and equivocal becuase we are not completely different
-
A being has a quality to a certain degree relative to its nature - Human love is to human nature like divine love is to divine nature
Saying God's love is proportional to his infinite being is simply saying God is loving in a way in which we cannot understand
The analogy of attribution is meant to circumvent issues of proportion, however God is the source of everything, attribution can tell us that God is the source of human qualities, but it cannot tell us in what way God has those qualities