Religious Language

What is the problem of religious language?

Talking meaningfully about something usually requires understanding it to some degree. But most Christians believe God is beyond human understanding, so the problem is: how can Christians meaningfully talk about God?

What are the three main theories of religious language in this topic?

1. Via negativa (apophatic / negative theology)

2. Analogy (Aquinas)

3. Symbol (Tillich)

Each explains how God-talk can be meaningful despite God’s transcendence.

What is the topic really about beneath the surface?

It’s about the relationship between God and humans, and what that implies about:

• what we can know about God

• what we can say about God

How does each theory understand the God–human relationship?

Via negativa: relationship is asymmetrical → language must negate to purify

• Analogy: relationship includes participation / imago Dei → language can refer imperfectly but accurately

• Symbol: relationship is existential/affective → language connects and transforms the person

What is the Via Negativa theory?

Via negativa says we must give up trying to say what God is. The only meaningful religious language is saying what God is not.

Why does Via Negativa reject positive statements about God?

Because God is totally beyond human understanding, so positive language risks:

• limiting God

• misunderstanding God

• reducing God to human categories

What does it mean to say “God is not darkness”?

It does not mean “God is light.”
Instead, it means God is beyond the darkness/light distinction altogether.

How does Pseudo-Dionysius illustrate Via Negativa?

He describes Moses ascending Mount Sinai, entering the cloud of unknowing, showing that approaching God involves moving beyond knowledge and concepts.

What is the “cloud of unknowing”?

A metaphor for the spiritual reality that closeness to God requires abandoning human certainty and conceptual thinking.

What does Via Negativa do to the soul according to Dionysius?

It purifies the soul by breaking our “grasping” for knowledge, causing:

• an “inactivity of all knowledge”
  leading to being:

• “supremely united to the completely unknown”

What does Dionysius mean by “knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing”?

It is not intellectual knowledge about God. It is mystical knowledge gained through unity with God.

Why is apophatic language meaningful for Dionysius?

It is meaningful because it trains and purifies the soul into the correct stance toward God, preparing it for union.

Why does Maimonides think Via Negativa is superior to analogy?

Positive analogies risk anthropomorphism and can’t capture God’s distinctive essence. Negations progressively eliminate false possibilities and bring us nearer to accurate understanding.

What is Maimonides’ ship analogy?

Two people are told what a ship is:

• One hears positive comparisons (“like X”) → vague and misleading

• The other hears negations (“not mineral, not plant, not spherical”) → eliminates wrong options and advances understanding

What conclusion does Maimonides draw about God-talk?

Accurate predicates of God function as negations. Through them, we can “come nearer” to “knowledge and comprehension of God.”

What is Brian Davies’ main objection to Maimonides?

Negative language only gives knowledge when the range of possible options is known. But with God, negating everything doesn’t narrow to a clear understanding.

What example does Davies use to show negation can work?

If we negate “left-handed” and “ambidextrous,” we infer “right-handed” because the possible options are known.

Why does this fail with God?

If you negate every possible predicate found in the universe, you don’t end up understanding God more — you end up with nothing intelligible.

What deeper issue does Davies identify in Maimonides’ method?

Maimonides assumes Aristotelian epistemology, where knowledge means grasping a thing’s essential form. But God’s essence is unknowable, so negations can’t reach it.

How does Aquinas relate to this critique?

Aquinas recognised you need a metaphysical link between humans and God. Humans participate in God, creating likeness, allowing analogy without claiming to grasp God’s essence.

How does Dionysius avoid Davies’ critique?

Dionysius’ via negativa is non-Aristotelian: it rejects conceptual knowledge entirely. Negation is not about narrowing options but removing intellectual arrogance to reach unity.

What kind of knowledge does Dionysius’ via negativa offer?

Mystical knowledge: direct but non-representational awareness, gained through unity rather than concepts.

Why might Via Negativa seem unbiblical?

The Bible contains positive God-talk such as:

• “God is love”

• “God is spirit”

• “I am a jealous God” (Exodus)

So scripture appears cataphatic (affirmative).

How does Pseudo-Dionysius respond to biblical positive language?

He argues scripture describes God’s effects, not God’s essence:

• God is called love because he causes love in humans

• God is called spirit because he gives life

How does Dionysius understand causation here?

In a Neoplatonist way: causation implies participation, meaning perfections flow from God into creation.

Why must affirmations still be “unsaid” for Dionysius?

Because God transcends human modes of being — even true-sounding affirmations must be negated to avoid limiting God.

How does Dionysius’ biblical defence open the door to analogy?

If humans have perfections (love, goodness) through participation in God, that implies a formal likeness, however minimal. That supports analogy rather than pure equivocation.

Why does Aquinas think participation implies analogy?

Once predicates are grounded causally (not arbitrary), they cannot be purely equivocal — some meaningful likeness must exist.

Why is Aquinas’ critique not just “people don’t like via negativa”?

Because religious language theories should reflect the real relationship between God and humans. The lived “phenomenology” of religious language suggests participation and resonance, supporting analogy.

What is Aquinas’ key claim about religious language?

We cannot say what God is directly, but we can say what God is like using analogical language.

Give an example of analogical God-talk.

Instead of saying “God is loving” literally, we say:
God has love like human love, but in a greater way.

Why does Aquinas reject univocal language about God?

Univocal language fails because humans are not the same as God, so words cannot have exactly the same meaning.

Why does Aquinas reject equivocal language?

Equivocal language makes God-talk meaningless because if humans are totally different from God, words cannot refer to God at all.

What is Aquinas’ “middle ground” solution?

Analogy: humans are neither identical to God nor totally different — humans are like God.

What biblical support does Aquinas use for analogy?

Genesis: humans are made in God’s image and likeness (imago Dei).

What is the analogy of attribution?

We attribute a quality to God because God is the cause/source of that quality in humans (e.g., love).

What is the analogy of proportion?

God has qualities in proportion to God’s nature: God’s perfections are infinite, so God has love/goodness to a greater degree than humans.

How does analogy balance meaning and transcendence?

It allows meaningful God-talk while still respecting that God’s nature is beyond full human comprehension.

What example does Aquinas use involving a bull?

If we see the bull’s urine is healthy, we infer the bull has health too. This shows how we infer a quality indirectly (analogy of attribution).

How does “life” illustrate analogy?

A virus, plant, human, and God all have “life” in different degrees. The term applies proportionally according to the being’s nature.

What is Brummer’s main criticism of analogy?

Analogy collapses into negative language:

• proportion fails because God is infinite

• attribution only shows God is the source of qualities, not how God has them

Why does Brummer reject analogy of proportion?

Because if God’s being is infinite, God’s qualities are beyond comprehension — proportion does not give meaningful content.

Why does Brummer think attribution fails too?

It only tells us God causes our qualities, not what it means for God to possess them.

What example does Brummer use to explain why analogies require knowledge of both sides?

Saying “water is like electricity” seems meaningful only because we know both and how they relate (flow/current). But we don’t know God in that way.

How does Aquinas defend analogy against Brummer?

Analogy is not based on empirical similarity but metaphysical participation:
human perfections are limited participations in God’s unlimited perfection.

What does it mean to say human love is a “derivative” form of divine love?

The love we know is a limited version of the same perfection that exists in God as its source — not merely “something vaguely similar.”

Why does Brummer fail according to this evaluation?

He misunderstands analogy: Aquinas claims the perfection signified by a term is truly present in God, but in an infinite, non-human mode.

Why does analogy still succeed even if participation metaphysics failed?

Even “God is somehow like humans” is still a positive claim, so analogy achieves more than via negativa while respecting transcendence.

How does Aquinas justify natural theology?

Human reason comes from the imago Dei, distinguishing humans from animals. Moral responsibility implies reason still functions, even if damaged by sin.

What does Aquinas think reason can know?

Reason can know:

• God’s existence (Five Ways)

• natural moral law

• God’s attributes through analogy

What is Karl Barth’s main criticism of natural theology?

It over-relies on fallen human reason. Even if reason isn’t destroyed by sin, it is unreliable.

What quote summarises Barth’s view?

“The finite has no capacity for the infinite.”

Why does Barth think natural theology is dangerous?

It risks false conceptions of God, leading to idolatry (worshipping the wrong thing).

What political example is linked to Barth’s concern?

Worship of human ideals (nation/fatherland) contributing to Nazism.

What is Barth’s alternative?

Rely solely on faith and the Bible, not philosophical reasoning.

What is the main weakness of Barth’s approach?

Avoiding reason has risks too:

• blind faith

• superstition

• error and idolatry

No approach is risk-free for fallen humans.

Why is Aquinas a balanced middle ground?

Aquinas is humble in what reason can discover:

• not the Christian God, only an “unmoved mover”

• not divine moral law, but natural law within us

• not God’s nature, but analogical source of perfections

What does Tillich claim about religious language?

Religious language is not literal. It doesn’t describe God’s essence. Instead, it is symbolic.

What does symbolic language do for Tillich?

It connects a person’s mind/soul to something beyond itself — like a religious experience — and that connection is its meaning.

Give an example of symbolic religious language.

“God be with you” doesn’t describe God literally; it creates a felt connection with God in the moment.

What example shows how symbols work?

A Christian looking at a crucifix feels connected to God because the crucifix symbolises Jesus’ sacrifice.

What is Tillich’s theory of participation?

Symbols point beyond themselves and participate in what they symbolise, creating a “bridge” to a higher spiritual reality.

What does Tillich mean by saying “God is a symbol”?

“God” symbolises the ground of being (being-itself).

What does Tillich mean by religion being a symbol of “ultimate concern”?

Religion expresses what matters most to humans — the deepest concern shaping our lives.

Why is Tillich described as an existentialist?

He treats religious questions as tied to human psychological experience and meaning, not abstract metaphysical description.

What is Tillich’s key insight about meaning?

We don’t need to understand God conceptually to be connected to God — symbols create connection, making religious language meaningful.

What is William Alston’s main criticism of Tillich?

Tillich overlooks that religious language includes factual truth claims, e.g. salvation and afterlife.

What doctrines challenge Tillich’s symbolic approach?

Heaven and hell seem intended as objective realities, not merely symbolic expressions.

How does John Hick support this criticism?

He argues philosophical God-language (e.g., “necessary being”) isn’t symbolic — it aims to describe reality.

What is the cognitive element Tillich fails to account for?

Many believers treat religious language as expressing beliefs that are true or false (cognitivism), not just emotional connection.

What strength does Tillich have compared to other theories?

He captures the spiritual depth of lived religion — how religious language evokes powerful experience and connection.

Why might Tillich be more accurate psychologically?

For many believers, what matters most is not doctrine but spiritual experience (hope, love, closeness to God).

Why does Tillich still fail overall in evaluation?

He goes too far: he captures experience but loses balance. Christian faith includes both:

• spiritual feeling

• factual belief (e.g., salvation, afterlife)

Beliefs shape and orient religious experience, so symbolism alone is incomplete.

What is Hick’s critique of Tillich’s participation claim?

Tillich says symbols are beyond cognitive/non-cognitive, but then makes an ontological claim (“symbols participate in reality”), which must be cognitive.

Why does Hick think Tillich is incoherent?

Tillich refuses literal explanation, yet participation is a metaphysical claim requiring clarity — so “participation” becomes imprecise.

What example shows the vagueness of participation?

It’s unclear how a flag participates in the power/dignity of a nation — so it’s even less clear how religious symbols participate in God.

Why does Hick say religious symbols aren’t special if everything participates in God?

If all beings participate in the ground of being, then religious symbols have no unique access to the divine, undermining their special revelatory role.

How does Randall avoid Hick’s critique?

Randall abandons participation: symbols don’t connect to a transcendent reality — they regulate culture and community through shared emotion, identity, and moral guidance.

Why does Randall’s view avoid metaphysical problems?

Because it treats symbols as purely non-cognitive, so Hick’s demand for ontological explanation disappears.

What is the major problem with Randall’s approach?

It collapses into theological anti-realism:

• religion makes no truth claims

• cannot be knowledge of God

• contradicts most believers’ intentions

Why does removing transcendent reference make symbols unstable?

Meaning shifts with culture, giving no basis to judge authentic development vs distortion, undermining tradition’s coherence.

Why does Randall struggle to explain religion’s motivational force?

Conversion, sacrifice, and moral seriousness are hard to justify if religion is only expressive cultural practice, not engagement with real transcendence.

Final judgement on symbol theory (from your text)?

Symbol captures religious psychology and expression, but fails to capture religious language’s crucial truth-claim component.

What is the best 1-line summary of Via Negativa?

God is beyond concepts, so meaningful God-talk must negate and purify, leading to mystical unity rather than description.

What is the best 1-line summary of Aquinas’ analogy?

Humans participate in God (imago Dei), so language can refer to God indirectly and proportionally without claiming full comprehension.

What is the best 1-line summary of Tillich’s symbol theory?

Religious language is meaningful because symbols connect us existentially to the ground of being, transforming experience rather than stating facts.

Which theory best preserves truth-claims?

Analogy (Aquinas), because it maintains cognitive meaning while respecting transcendence.

hich theory best captures mystical spirituality?

Via negativa (Pseudo-Dionysius), because it aims at unity beyond intellect.

Which theory best captures lived religious experience?

Symbol (Tillich), because it explains emotional and existential connection.