Religious language P1

Univocal language

Univocal language

Words that mean the same thing when used in different contexts

Equivocal language

Words that mean different things when used in different contexts

Cognitive sentence

A sentence about which it is appropriate to ask heather it is true or false/ a stance that asserts something

Non-congnitive sentence

A sentence about which it is not appropriate to ask whether it is true or false/ a sentence hat asserts something. Orders, ethical commands, questions, requests, stories, poems, are non-cognitive utterances

Apophatic way/via negitiva

A way of speaking about god and theological ideas using only terms that say what god is not, and the claim that we cannot say anything positive about god

Cataphatic way/ Via positiva

A range of ways of speaking about god and theological ideas using only terms that say what god is, and the claim that we are able to make various positive statements about god. This includes both Aquinas analogical approach AND tillich’s symbolic approach

Analogy of attribution

We can determine something about an author or maker from the product they have created

Analogy of proportion

From a lesser statement we can say that something else, such as god, has proportionally more of the same quaity

4 categories of religious language

• used to make truth claims

• Used to express feelings and emotions

• Used prefromativly

• Used prescriptevly

Religious language to make truth claims

• Religious language can be used to make statements about what is, or not, the case

  • E.G., ‘there is no god but Allah’

• These statements are neutrally rad as asserting something that could be tru

• However, hen people meet to worship or preform rights, they don’t necessarily use language to make truth claims

Religious language to express feelings and emotions

• Habakkuk 1:2 - “oh lord! How long will i cry and you will not hear? I cry out for you of violence, and you will not save”

• Some worry that understanding religious language emotively can reduce religion to nothing more than the expression of hysteria, and that people are encouraged to have faith because of the warn feelings it gives them and the satisfaction of some of their emotional needs

  • Some such as Peter Donovan say that this is perfectly fine. Emotions Need to be controlled and challenged and using religious language can do this effectively

Religious language used preformitavly

• a prefromative use of language is when words are used to do something

• The words have the same function as an action: like actions, they change the social reality in which they feature

• People thank god by saying words of thanks or praise to God by saying words of praise - the speaking is the doing

• The words used in an action to preform a particular action that is essential to the activity

• Without these words, the act has not taken place; if nothing was said, the bride and groom would not be married

Using religious language prescriptively

• E.g., the 10 commandments

• The language here takes the imperative form (expressing commands) and tells us what we should and shouldn’t do

Via negitiva

• the via positiva suggests we us the same language to discuss god but just bear in mind tha it means a higher level

• The via negitiva suggests we can only talk about god in negiitve terms e.g., ‘God is not evil’

• Joined with many other statements, this can actually tell us something about god

Arguments surrounding he via negitiva

Arguments that god cannot be spoken of in positive terms:

• God cannot be spoken of in positive terms as God is transcendent (beyond the confines of time and space)

• To use human language to describe god would limit our understanding of them

Therefore why is the only approach to talk in negiitve terms?

• God should be spoken of in negiitve terms as it is less limiting

• This is because the descriptions do not have to be limited by our understanding

Pseudo-Dionysius

• 6th century Christian philosopher

• Only way we can talk about god because they are ‘beyond all knowlage’

• People should recognise that God is a mystery because his is ‘the perfect and unique cause of all things’

• Until people can accept this god will only be described in positive terms, which then results in an idea of god which is too small

• Instead people should genuinely seek god in order to understand them, and should allow god to speak to them in stillness without the confines of positive attributes

St Thomas Aquinas

• Used via negitiva to define something by stating what is not

• Argued that by reducing the possibilities of what something couldn’t be, you gain an understanding of what it could be

• ‘This is the ultimate in human knowledge of god; to know what we do not know’

• Even when we use words such as ‘perfect’ to describe god we do by way of elation, because we understand perfection as ‘lacking nothing’

Rambam

• believed human language is useful for defining, explaining and distinguishing in the finite world

• However, ‘god’ would not be ‘god’ if he was only spoken of in this any, sowing to an understanding of what god is not, they move closer to approaching what he is

• Those who state attributes of god don’t just lack sufficient knowledge concerning the creator, but they also unconsciously lose their belief in god

The via negitiva provides a way to truly understand god

• it avoids the pitfalls of using inadequate human language to describe god

• It conveys the essential mystery and trancendance of god

• It avoids the interpretation issues of using positive language (e.g., what does it mean for god to be all loving)

• Avoids anthropomorphising god

The via negitiva does not provide a way to truly undated god

• it results in a limited understand of god

• One could still end up it’s a different understanding of God

• It does not reflect how theists speak about god

• It can be seen as a logical contradiction - are you really describing god at all?

• It poses the idea of revelations about the nature of god (e.g., though religious experiences)

Aquinas and Univocal language

• If we are speaking univocally, we are claiming God is good in the same way humans are

• Aquinas rejected its use as God is perfect. Therefore, humans can never be good in the same way that god is

Aquinas and Equivocal language

• If wwe are speaking Equivocally, we are claiming god is good in a completely different way to humans

• Aquinas rejected its use as it would mean that we could not claim to know anything about him

Aquinas and analogy

• Analogy is the act of describing one thing by comparing it to anther thing we already know

• Aquinas believed that god should be thought of analogically

• This involves making comparisons with god in order to describe his nature

Aquinas 2 types of analogy

1. Analogy of attribution - this is the view that god is the cause of all good things in humans

2. Analogy of proportion - this is the view that all good qualities belong to gods are in proportion to humans (i.e. at a higher level than our own)

Why did Aquinas believe analogy could be used to describe god?

• Ian Ramsey (1915 - 1972) offered a ‘models’ and ‘qualifiers approach to analogy

• A model is an analogy that helps us to express something about golf

• For example, if we say “God is good”, the model of the word is ‘good’

• We have a human understanding of god, and when applied to god, it is a model for understanding gods goodness

Ramsey

• Ramsey says that if we want to understand gods’ goodness, we need to adap the model

• We need to qualify it, so that we realise that is not literally what go is like

• To the statement ‘god is good’ you need to add the qualifier that god is ‘indefinitely’ good

• This makes us think about gods’ goodness in more and more depth, until eventually we have insight into gods goodness

Richard Swinburne

• Richard Swinburne criticises Awuinas for producing an unnecessary theory

• When we say, “god is good” we may be using ‘good’ to apply to different things, but we are using it o mean the same thing i.e., we are using the word good univocally

• God and humans possess goodness in different ways. It is still the same essential quality, vein through god it’s perfect and divine, and humans are not

The use of analogy allows us to talk meaningful about God:

• analogy of attribution - avoids problems of equivocal language

• Avoids anthropomorphising

• Using models and qualifiers allows us to show that food is some what the same but somewhat different

• Hick supports analogy as it enables us to make statements about god but also preserve a degree of mystery

The use of analogy does not allow us to ask meaningful questions about god

• by attributing similar ideas to god, we may still limit god

• Analogy of proposition - how do we know how much greater god is?

• J Don Scotus argues that analogy is too vague

• Analogies assume a similarity between god and humans

Symbols

• symbols are very common in religious traditions

• In the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, a bishop carries a Crozier, a staff modelled on a shepard’s crook

• It is not just objects which can be symbolic, ritual action or particular clothing can also have a meaning for the believer

Signs and symbols

• A sign is something which indicates some meaning (e.g., a road sigh). Its meaning can be arbitrary

• Symbol, however, holds a deeper significance. The crucifix, for example, is a symbol of varied meanings in Christianity, just as the magin david is in Judaism

• When we talk of symbols as religious language, we are drawn to the writings of Paul Tillich

How does Paul Tillich see religious language as symbols?

• the German theological Paul Tillich (1845-1965) Believed we cannot describe god in a cognitive way

• God is beyond our understanding and so we cannot use everyday language to describe god

Paul Tillich

• Believed that symbols communicate the most significant beliefs and values of humanity

• Symbols are centred in their culture. A nir Tamid in a soul will have no meaning to a non Jew but a very specific one to a Jew

• Non-religious peoples also have a specific meaning for certain objects or symbols