negative positive

What is religious language

Explore how humans can meaningfully talk about god

What is apophatic way(Via negativa)

Speaking of god by stating what he is not god is transcendent and beyond human comprehension

Scholars that agree with apophatic way

• Pseudo Dionysius - argued that we can only speak of god truthfully through via negativa . Soul has to go beyond realm of sense perception and rationality and entering ‘cloud of unknowing’ where god can be approached. He said “therefore we must not dare to speak or to form any conception of the hidden”

  
  

• Moses Maimonides - book “the guide for the perplexed” says god attributes can be understood through what they are not. Making positive statements can anthropomorphise God as we may attribute human characteristics to god. Example: ship analogy- someone ask what a ship is you should use negative attributes then eventually you will have a clearer understanding of the ship without making false claims which we can do we god.

• Peter Cole: 'By denying all descriptions of God, you get insight and experience of God rather than unbelief and scepticism’

What is cataphatic way (via positiva) and analogy also symbol

• It is the use of positive terms.

• Aquinas stated we could not speak of god equivocally which is using a word with entirely different meanings -bark on a tree or dog bark Aquinas rejects this because if words can have different meanings then applied to god will be meaningless

• univocally is using words in the exact same meaning as humans like god is good same way we can say humans are good Aquinas rejects because god goodness is infinite

• we can can use analogy(comparison) two types 1.attribution - casual relationship between two things

  example: bull urine is healthy therefore we can tell the bull is healthy urine is good bull is good. 2. Proper proportion - when we say humans are good we speak of a finite being when say god is good we speak of a infinite being so goodness is in proportion to that

• Ramsey models and qualifiers modern way of using analogy - models using words like loving which we understand with our own experiences. However so we do not limit god we use qualifiers these are adverbs and adjectives such as immensely so then we show god is different from us proportionally from qualifier

• Symbols - non cognitive form of language contain metaphors similes and myths. Help point to concept they are conveying like chocolate cake we think of a sticky desert

Scholars that agree with via positiva the cataphatic way

• Aquinas his two types of analogy attribution, proper proportion and examples .

• Ramsey models and qualifiers for analogy

• Tillich and symbols - believed they were cognitive. first main point is that symbols are not signs they both point to something beyond themselves but only symbols point to a deeper message

example: christian cross . It reminds Christians of Jesus' sacrifice and the redemption he brings. Yet, it is also a prompt from prayer, worship, and meditation. This means that Christians take an active interest in the cross, they participate' in it, which is what Tillich thought that symbolism was all about. It is not just a sign. Symbols “'They open up levels of reality which otherwise are closed to us.

say, 'God is love', then that is not just a sign of - what God is, but a participation in the reality of God. Tillich adds that the term is both 'affirmed and negated' by the reality of God. It is affirmed because God really is love, but negated because the human term of love is so different compared to God's love.

strengths and weakness of apophatic way

Strengths

• Doesn’t reduce god to our level

• C.s Lewis in book miracles says to use negative theology helps us cleanse our minds of misconceptions

• Avoid anthropomorphism

Weaknesses

• Brian Davies states that simply describing something in terms of what it is not, gives no clue to what it actually is

• Religious people use positive knowledge of what god is not negative

Strengths and weakness of cataphatic way

Strengths

• It is not univocal so avoid anthropomorphism and equivocal avoid god nature cannot be known

• Frederick ferre says that analogy gives us a rule that enables us to use theological language about god as it concentrates on how words need to be used carefully .

  
  

  weaknesses

• Karl Barth says analogy is wrong as we cannot approach god through language based on our experience we need revelation “if we know about god it is because it has been given to us by gods revelation”

• Wonder whether evil in our world is also an analogy to god

Order of scholars

Negative

1. Pseudo Dionysius

2. Moses Maimonides

3. Peter Cole

Positive

1. Aquinas

2. Ramsey

3. Brian Davies