Negative, Analogical or Symbolic Religious language.

What is religious language?

-Refers to the written + spoken language used by religious believers when they talk about God, their religious beliefs + their religious experiences.

-Use of the term suggests there’s a special ‘religious’ language that is separate from other forms of language.

-Even though believers may use certain words more often, the words in religious language are the same as those in everyday language. E.g. ‘God’ appears in non-religious contexts (like curses), + most words in sacred texts (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have ordinary, everyday meanings.

-The significance of religious language isn’t in the words themselves, but in their overall meaning. For instance, calling God ‘benevolent’ emphasizes His infinite goodness, which goes beyond the everyday meaning of the word.

What is the debate behind religious language?

-The religious language debate asks the question: “What can be said about God?”

-It doesn’t focus on whether God exists, what God is like, or why evil exists, but on whether religious language has any meaning.

-One side consists of religious believers who argue we can meaningfully talk + write about God because God is real.

-The other side includes Logical Positivists + their followers, who claim statements about God are meaningless because they don’t refer to anything real.

What are 2 types of language?

-Cognitive language conveys facts - we can ask if the statement is true or false.

-Non-cognitive language conveys information that isn’t factual; emotions, feelings + metaphysical claims.

What is the apophatic way?

-Theological language is best approached by negation - saying what God isn’t.

-Argues human language cannot adequately describe God, so the only meaningful statements are negative ones - about what God isn’t.

-Supporters claim God is beyond human comprehension. Similar to Judaism, where God’s name is not spoken + Islam, where picturing God is forbidden, this approach recognises using human language risks imagining a human version of God.

-E.g. saying “God is good” applies human understanding of goodness, but God’s goodness is beyond that. All of God’s attributes are like this, making words equivocal - they use the same term but with a completely different meaning when applied to God.

What is the cataphatic way?

-Positive statements can be made about God - we can talk directly about God.

-Describes God through positive statements + assumes we can know + understand God by studying creation, revelation, prayer + religious experience.

-E.g. God is love, God is just, God is Father, Son + Holy Spirit. This is seen in the New Testament writers.

-Thomas Aquinas developed this approach further, arguing we can speak about God using analogy. Since God is the creator, we can use the world as a reference point - e.g. observing love in the world helps us understand God is loving.

What is the via negativa? (apophatic way)

-Explains God by focusing on what God isn’t.

-This approach is based on the belief God is beyond human understanding + cannot be fully described - God is completely ineffable. This idea comes from Neo-Platonists, such as Plotinus + Augustine.

-Key writings on the Via Negativa are found in the works of Pseudo-Dionysius + Moses Maimonides.

What did Moses Maimonides contribute to the via negativa?

-Moses Maimonides a 12th-century Jewish philosopher believed the Torah was an imperfect source for describing God, since human language is limited - “The Torah was written by the sons of men.”

-Using human language to describe God is anthropomorphic. Such descriptions were necessary for those less intelligent but were a “second-best” approach - “the sun is hidden to eyes that are too weak to comprehend it.”

-Ultimately, he concluded “silence is the best praise” when describing God directly.

-He recommended showing God’s nature through what God isn’t, using the via negativa - e.g. God isn’t evil.

How was the via negativa further developed?

-By Basil the Great + early Christian philosophers known as the Cappadocian Fathers.

-They were concerned with the difficulty of fully conveying God’s nature through words.

-Basil the Great stated: “Our intellect is weak but our tongue is even weaker.”

How did the via negativa contrast with via positiva?

-The via positiva uses positive statements to describe God, such as “God is everywhere.” Whereas the negative approach argues such statements are limiting.

-The via negativa says God is beyond creation + we cannot fully know the “everywhere” God inhabits.

-Even saying “God exists” must be qualified: God’s existence is entirely different from anything we can imagine.

How has the via negativa been influential within Christianity?

-The via negativa seeks unity with God by understanding what God isn’t, rather than trying to describe what God is.

-In Christianity, it emphasizes God’s transcendence + otherness + has been used to express the ineffable nature of religious experiences.

The via negativa (apophatic way) enables effective understanding of theological discussion.

-Peter Cole argues the via negativa gives insight into God. Since humans cannot speak positively about God, describing what God isn’t avoids misunderstandings. He says: “by denying all descriptions of God, you get insight into God rather than unbelief.”

-It avoids anthropomorphism, preventing the humanising of God. It doesn’t limit God by using physical-world references. E.g. saying “God is powerful” makes us imagine a large, muscular figure, which objectifies God. This approach aligns with scholars like Boethius + Anselm, who emphasised that God is beyond human understanding.

-It highlights God’s majesty. It conveys the essential otherness + mystery of God, showing respect for His supreme perfection. Maimonides argued positive statements are inadequate because they cannot fully express God, so negative statements better reflect His perfection + transcendence.

-William James argued religious experiences are ineffable, meaning they can’t be fully described. He sees the via negativa as helpful because it allows people to explain their experiences by saying what God isn’t, rather than attempting inadequate positive descriptions.

The via negativa (apophatic way) does not enable effective understanding of theological discussion.

-W.R. Inge argued speaking of God only negatively doesn’t help someone without prior experience of God. Just as defining white only as “not black” is meaningless to someone who has never seen white, describing God by what He is not fails to convey understanding, because God is outside human experience.

-The Via Negativa defines God by saying what He isn’t. Anthony Flew argued by describing God as invisible, we risk equating God with nothingness. Continually qualifying God in this way eventually leads to a concept of God that is indistinguishable from nothing.

-The Via Negativa isn’t fully consistent with the Bible. Many scriptures make positive statements about God, such as describing Him as a king, judge, father, shepherd, or rock. If holy scripture is considered to come from God, this suggests making positive claims about God can be right + appropriate.

-Brian Davies criticises the Via Negativa, arguing only saying what God isn’t gives no real indication of what God actually is. He suggests focusing solely on negations is unreasonable + unhelpful -e.g. someone could think they’re describing a “ship” but end up imagining a wardrobe instead.

What is analogy? (cataphatic way)

-An analogy tries to explain something difficult to understand by comparing it with something familiar. E.g. William Paley’s watch analogy, where God as creator is compared to a watchmaker: just as a watch is designed for a purpose, so too is the universe, even though we have no direct experience of God as creator.

-Aquinas rejected both univocal + equivocal language when talking about God.

-Univocal language uses words to mean the same thing in all situations.

-Equivocal language uses words to mean different things in different contexts.

How did Aquinas use analogy to solve the problem of religious language?

-Religious language tries to describe God’s attributes, but this is hard because we don’t have direct experience of God, unlike things we encounter in the world.

-Saying “God is good” raises questions about the meaning of “good.”

-Univocal: God is good in the same way humans are - Aquinas rejected this because humans are imperfect, God is perfect.

-Equivocal: God is good in a completely different way - Aquinas rejected this because it prevents meaningful knowledge of God.

-Aquinas proposed a middle way: analogy, which allows us to speak meaningfully about God.

What is analogy of attribution?

-God is the source of all things + universally perfect + all beings in the universe reflect or imitate God according to their own mode of existence.

-Aquinas uses a bull to illustrate analogy of attribution. By examining the bull’s urine, we get an indication of the bull’s health. However, the bull’s true health exists fully in the bull itself + is only reflected in the urine.

-God is the source of all qualities in the universe + possesses them perfectly. Other beings have these qualities secondarily + analogically. Because humans are made in God’s image, we can say we have attributes like wisdom + goodness analogically, while God has them perfectly.

Summarise the analogy of attribution.

-Words like good + just can be applied to both humans + God.

-Humans show goodness in a limited way, but God, as Creator, is the source of goodness.

-When we say ‘God is good’ or ‘The Pope is good,’ the word is used in a similar sense, but God’s goodness is perfect + beyond human moral understanding.

What is analogy of proportion?

-We possess qualities like those of God because we were created in his image + likeness, but because we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God.

-When we say ‘God is good’, Aquinas means God perfectly embodies what it is to be God. He isn’t talking about moral goodness, but about God fully living up to his nature as eternal + unchangeable.

-Aquinas’ analogy of proportion means words describe a quality in relation to the kind of being it is. Humans are loyal in proportion to what it means to be human. Similarly, we understand God’s omnipotence through our human idea of power - God is infinitely more powerful, but our experience gives us insight into his power.

Summarise analogy of proportion.

-Humans have qualities like goodness, wisdom + faithfulness, but in lesser proportion than God.

-We can use human terms to describe God, but always proportionately - extending the meaning upward to reflect God’s perfect nature.

What is Ian Ramsey’s theory of models + qualifiers?

Linked religious language to analogical language. He suggested words + titles applied to God act as ‘models’ - they tell us something about God but not the whole story, similar to how everyday models help us understand something.

-Because models are simpler than the original, they need ‘qualifiers’ - limits that show the model doesn’t fully capture the original’s depth or complexity.

-Ramsey suggested religious language works like a model to help us understand God.

-E.g. when we say “God is good,” the word “good” is a model based on our human understanding of goodness.

-Because God is beyond human experience, we need to add a ‘qualifier’ - for instance, “infinitely” - so the statement becomes “God is infinitely good.” This allows us to gain greater insight into the nature of God’s goodness.

Aquinas’ analogical approach (cataphatic way) is an effective expression of language about God.

-Analogy helps us understand things beyond our experience by comparing them to things within our frame of reference. E.g. Paley’s watch analogy shows God as the designer of the world, using something we understand (a watch) to explain something beyond our world (God). Similarly, Plato’s cave analogy helps explain the metaphysical concept of the world of forms in terms we can grasp.

-Analogy has an empirical base in the world. If we accept, as Aquinas did, that God created the world, then we can use the world to describe God. The analogy of attribution works on the idea God is the source of goodness + love, so terms like “good” or “loving” can be applied to God. This approach appeals to empiricist scholars, such as Aristotle, who value posteriori evidence.

-Analogy avoids anthropomorphising God because words used about God aren’t meant literally. E.g. saying God “sees” when describing omniscience is a way to help humans grasp God’s abilities. This helps humans understand God as transcendent. Anselm and Boethius agree with Aquinas, as it provides a way to understand God’s timelessness.

-Analogy is helpful for explaining difficult concepts like God’s agape love + it can be hard to understand how it is shown. An analogy, such as the love between a mother + child, helps illustrate God’s agape love.

Aquinas’ analogical approach (cataphatic way) is not an effective expression of language about God.

-Aquinas assumed God created the world + humans were made in God’s image. If someone doesn’t accept these assumptions - like Darwin or Dawkins reject creation - then Aquinas’ idea that we can understand God by examining creation doesn’t hold.

-John Stuart Mill argued if we infer God’s qualities from the world, the presence of natural evil suggests God would be evil or sinister. Therefore, using analogy to understand God is unreliable + may misrepresent Him.

-The Logical Positivists, like A.J. Ayer, argued religious language is meaningless because it cannot be empirically verified. Statements such as “God is powerful” lack cognitive or factual meaning since analogy cannot provide evidence to support them.

-Patrick Sherry notes many believers interpret religious statements literally rather than analogically. E.g. Christians who follow ‘sola scriptura’ see the Bible’s descriptions of God as literal truths, so using analogy to describe God is less helpful + less meaningful for them.

What is symbolism?

-Paul Tillich argued we can speak meaningfully about metaphysical ideas because religious language is symbolic + deeply impactful.

-He distinguished between signs + symbols: signs simply point to something + don’t participate in what they indicate, whereas symbols convey deeper meaning + connect us to what they represent.

-Religious language, like music, art, or poetry, have a profound effect that’s hard to fully explain + is best understood by those who share the experience.

-Symbols open up new levels of reality + offer fresh perspectives on life. He believed religious language functions symbolically to point toward the ultimate reality, which he called “Being-Itself,” the foundation upon which everything depends, + we come to know this ultimate reality through symbols.

Why are symbols more powerful than signs?

-Because they participate in the meaning of what they represent.

-E.g. the cross in Christianity isn’t just a marker but actively communicates the sacrifice of Jesus + the believer’s understanding of God’s plan for salvation.

-Religious language works in the same way - it functions as a symbol, conveying deep meaning + engaging us beyond mere factual statements.

How does Paul Tillich explain the role of symbols in religious language?

-Religious language is symbolic, not literal + appeals to the poetic, mythical, + imaginative side of human nature to convey fundamental truths.

-Symbols are the only way to access these truths. He gave the example of a flag, which “participates in the power of the king or the nation for which it stands,” symbolising the country’s strength, power, and unity.

-In Christianity, symbols point beyond themselves to convey deeper meaning. E.g. a continually lit red candle in a Catholic Church symbolizes the presence of God, reminding believers God is with them.

Symbols help us talk about/understand God.

-J.R. Randall argued religious language is a human activity that enriches culture. It stirs strong emotions, unites communities through shared faith + helps people gain insight into difficult concepts like God through symbols.

-Life isn’t factual or intellectual; it’s also emotional. Symbols capture + express what can’t be described, like God or Heaven. Tillich believed symbols unlock parts of our soul or mind that would otherwise stay closed, helping us understand difficult concepts.

-Tillich argued symbols are central to Christianity because they point beyond themselves. E.g. a continually burning red candle in a Catholic Church symbolizes God’s presence + the Lamb of God symbolizes Jesus’ sacrifice, linking to the Passover story in the Old Testament.

-Tillich argued religious language points symbolically to ultimate reality (God). Just as a description of a painting is incomplete without the painting itself, talking about God is made more meaningful through visual symbols.

Symbols don’t help us talk about/understand God.

-Tillich noted symbols can change meaning over time. E.g. the swastika originally symbolised good fortune in Hinduism but became associated with Hitler + the Nazis, showing symbols may not always convey their original meaning about God.

-Tillich argues God is beyond human understanding. Religious symbols point toward an understanding of God, but because God is transcendent, no human language or symbol can fully capture or convey the nature of God.

-Symbols give different or even no insight into God depending on the person interpreting them. E.g. constantly lit sanctuary lamp in a Catholic Church symbolizes God’s presence + omnipresence for believers, but for a non-religious person it’s just a candle + conveys no deeper meaning.

-Paul Edwards argues symbols are meaningless because they don’t convey factual knowledge. Tillich counters symbols point beyond themselves + guide people toward insights about faith, but their truth cannot be empirically verified or falsified. Since symbols cannot provide verifiable facts, Edwards claims they’re subjective human inventions, open to interpretation + cannot establish objective truth.

-William Alston argues symbols are meaningless because we cannot know if they are true. While humans create symbols to help understand God’s transcendent reality, we have no way of verifying whether these symbols accurately represent God, making their truth uncertain.