Religious Language (Cataphatic and Apophatic ways)

What is cognitive language?

• Language is cognitive if it makes a factual claim

• Most cognitive language consists of synthetic statements - can be shown to be true or false depending on empirical evidence

Cognitive language example

‘The Houses of Parliament are located in Westminster’

You can go to Westminster to confirm Parliament is there

What is non-cognitive language?

• Language is non-cognitive if it does not make a factual claim - it is an opinion, feeling or wish

• Non-cognitive statements may convey emotion, give an order, make a moral claim, express a wish

Non-cognitive language example

‘I don’t like it when people steal’

That’s an expression of opinion, making a moral judgement; there is no empirical/factual evidence to prove it true or false

What is the apophatic way?

We cannot speak positively about God - can only describe him in terms of what he is NOT

Another way of saying apophatic way

via negativa

What does Maimonides argue about religious language?

• Can’t speak positively about God

• Only positive thing we can say is that He exists

• Other than this, we can only speak negatively (say what God is NOT) - not subject to limitations

What is Maimonides’ analogy for describing God?

• Ship analogy

• e.g. a ship is ‘not a plant’

• Likeness can’t capture a thing’s distinctive form, risks anthropomorphic error, doesn’t bring them nearer to knowing what a ship essentially is

What is Brian Davies’ objection to Maimonides’ argument?

• Objects that negative language only yields knowledge when possibilities are known

  • e.g. for a human, negating left-handed and ambidextrous, leaves right-handed

• But negating everything in the universe as predicates of God leaves no greater understanding

Why would someone take the via Negativa approach?

God is beyond human comprehension/language - can’t do God justice or describe him using our inadequate language

What are the weaknesses of using human language to describe God?

1. Barrier to our understanding of God because our limited/finite language can’t describe his transcendence

2. Using human language to describe God risks anthropomorphism - projecting human qualities and ideas onto God

3. He is beyond all meaning and intelligence

What is Pseudo-Dionysis’ argument?

• Rejects conceptual knowledge altogether

• God is beyond assertion

• Only negative terms can be used to preserve the mystery and ‘otherness’ of God

What does John Scotus Eriugena argue?

“We do not know what God is. God is beyond all meaning and intelligence…no creature can comprehend God”

3 strengths of the apophatic way/via negativa

1. Avoids anthropomorphism and making any other mistakes about God

2. Preserves God’s transcendence and ‘otherness’

   1. Could also see it as more respectful

3. Consistent with James’ PINT criteria that religious expereinces are ‘ineffable’ - unable to articulate encounters with divine because they are so wholly other

3 criticisms of the apophatic way/via negativa

1. WR Inge: leads to the annihilation of God. If we can’t speak of God, what is the point of believing?

2. Bible uses positive terms to describe God (e.g. Gospel of John: ‘God is love’) - humans can and should

3. Leads to loss of communication between humanity and God

   1. If you can’t speak about God in positive terms, you’ll lose that imminent connection with God

What is the cataphatic way?

• Belief that we can make positive statements about God

• Can be univocal, equivocal, analogical or symbolic

• Found in the Bible - e.g. ‘God is love’

  • Evidence that this is the best way of thinking about religious lang for majority of Xtians

What is another way of saying the cataphatic way?

via Positiva

What is the difference between univocal and equivocal language?

• Univocal: Means the same thing in every context that you use it

• Equivocal: Has completely different meanings in different contexts

How does Aquinas use analogy to help us understand God?

• Used it as a middle way between univocal and equivocal language

• Used words/language that we do understand/context we’re familiar with to help us understand something that ultimately goes beyond our comprehension

What are the two types of analogy that Aquinas uses?

1. Analogy of Attribution

2. Analogy of Proper Proportion

What is the Analogy of Attribution?

• Qualities like love/wisdom are reflections of those qualities in God

• Bull and urine example: In Aquinas’ Middle Ages, if the urine of a bull was deemed ‘good’, then the bull that the urine came from was also deemed ‘good’

• Therefore because humans come from God, who is the height of ‘goodness’, we are a pale reflection of that ‘goodness’ and possess some of it ourselves

  • “Pale reflection of divine attributes”

What is the Analogy of Proper Proportion?

• A being has a quality in a degree relative to its being

• ‘Good’ footballer example: Consider calling a 10-year-old footballer and a Premier league footballer ‘good’ - same property in a different PROPORTION

• Same applies when talking about human (finite) goodness and God’s (infinite) goodness - they can both be true, but God’s goodness is on an infinitely larger scale

How does Hick extend on Aquinas’ Analogy of Proportion?

• Used faithfulness as an example

• With reference to proportion: a dog’s faithfulness to its human owner vs God’s faithfulness to humanity (e.g. sacrificing Jesus on the cross)

• The same quality, but at a different scale

Strengths of Analogy

• We still have something to say about God, which is important for theists

• Avoids annihilation (losing all connection with God/not saying anything) while also avoiding anthropomorphism (using human terms to describe)

• Helps humans understand God while emphasising differences - ‘pale reflection’/ different proportion

• Makes sense that we can say something about God based on our experiences in the world he’s created (while still acknowledging his otherness)

Criticisms of Analogy

• Still only provides a limited understanding of god - unclear how much meaning of words like ‘good’ or ‘faithful’ can be transferred to God

• Difficult to know how far meaning is stretched/whether it can be carried over from human to divine at all

  • Apophatic way/via negativa would say it can’t

• Brummer: analogy gives the illusion of saying something when you’re actually not saying anything

Paul Tillich - Symbolic Language

• Believes we can’t speak literally of God

• God is the ‘ground of all being’

• All religious language is symbolic

• The meaning of religious language is the spiritual connection to God it inspires through symbolic participation in the being of God

How does Tillich differentiate between sign and symbol

Highlights difference between sign (which points to something) and symbol

• e.g. compare a red traffic light (sign) with a flag (symbol)

In Christianity, the crucifix has a deep meaning and spiritual significance

What does Carl Jung state about symosl?

“A term or an image is symbolic if it means more than it describes or expresses”

Strengths of symbol

• Reflects deep meaning that religion has for a theist - symbols ‘unlock’ something deeper, which resonates with how theists feel about their faith

• Shows how religious language communicates on a much deeper level than everyday language - signs vs symbols distinction is insightful

• Preserves God’s transcendence and mystery while still allowing positive speech

• Credibility - builds on Jung’s ideas on symbols

Criticisms of symbol

• JH Randall: Symbolic language is non-cognitive. Would therefore be dismissed as meaningless by Verification Principle/can’t be empirically verified

• Unclear how it works - idea of ‘unlocking’ deeper truths/ ‘participating’ in the symbol might be seen as confusing/unclear by critics

• Meaning of symbols may be subjective to individual, time, culture (e.g. everyone has a different ‘participation’ with the crucifix)

  • Too vague and subjective