critical evaluation
does the apophatic way (via negativa) provide an effective method for theological discussion?
yes | no |
it is a way of recognising that we have to go beyond our normal everyday experiences n language in order to encounter God » does not place limit on God with a reference relative to the physical world | if we speak of God only negatively, then it’s still not easy for one who has no experience of God to know what is meant » to say that white is the opposite of black doesn’t give much help to those who have no concept of ‘white’ |
conveys the essential otherness n mystery of God n underlining the belief that God is not like us | if we try to arrive at something by process of elimination, we need to know before we start what the different possibilities are, so that we can know what we have left when the alternatives have been crossed out |
can be seen as a means by which we can say something about God, which is literally true and does not need interpretation | anthony flew: if we try to explain God by saying that he is invisible, soundless, incorporeal, etc, there is very little difference between our definition of God n our definition of nothingness |
useful for those who already believe in God, to remind them not to belittle God in their speech n their imaginations | if the Bible and other holy scriptures can make positive claims about God, then that suggests that in the right context, it can be appropriate to make positive claims about God |
do aquinas’ analogical approaches support effective expression of language about God?
yes | no |
aquinas n others say that there is nothing wrong with accepting that God is mysterious and that our knowledge of Him is limited, as long as the believer understands enough to be able to worship | because we have to translate the analogies into univocal language before they mean anything |
when Jesus was teaching, He often used analogy in order to communicate a message » Jesus described God’s influence on earth as a ‘kingdom’, also sometimes compared with a mustard seed in order to communicate ideas about its ability to grow | also described people who have fallen away from God’s teaching as being analogous to lost sheep n lost coins | taught about neighbourliness by giving a story about a good Samaritan | we have to know how God’s love relates to human love before we understand anything |
if the analogy is looking ‘upwards’ (as Hicks puts it) into infinity, and we start with the partial shadow that is human qualities eg human love n wisdom, and we have to use this partial shadow as our only tool for understanding the love n wisdom of God, then perhaps the analogy is not useful | |
can religious discourse be comprehensible if religious language is understood as symbolic?
yes | no |
many religions use symbolic washing = feeling cleansed from sin = being closer to God » Jews use Mikveh (ritual bath) as purification symbol, Christians use baptism, Muslims use wudu (ritual washing) pre-prayer, Hindus bathe in Ganges, Sikhs immerse themselves in the Pool of Nectar @ Amritsar | tilich’s view almost seems to suggest that there is no factual content in religious language and that it’s an appeal to an emotional response rather than a means of conveying knowledge |
symbols being open to interpretation can be seen as advantageous » intrinsic meaning for individuals, different things at different stages = new levels of meaning | could be argued that symbols leave us with no way of knowing what is a valid insight into ultimate reality n what is not |
without help, we might not know if we are interpreting a symbol correctly, or, if we take a symbol to be pointing beyond itself, whether we are pointing it in the right direction eg when looking at a highly symbolic piece of gallery artwork, without commentary or guidance, we may miss many of the important aspects that the artist is trying to convey | |
symbols can also be very dependent on cultural context in order to carry meaning eg in visual art, butterflies can have symbolic meanings that can differ across all cultures » art = love, fickleness, long life, brevity of life/Christianity = resurrection | swastika = good luck, Hinduism/fascism, modern Europe » God the father = authoritarian/lenient/closely involved in child’s upbringing/absent |
how do the apophatic way (via negativa) and the cataphatic way (via positive) compare as approaches to religious language?
cataphatic | apophatic |
noted as more helpful than apophatic way in helping someone who has no idea of God, towards an understanding of what religious believers mean when they are talking about God | avoids the need for people to guess what an analogy or symbol might mean » saying God is ‘invisible’ requires no interpretation |
leaves open the possibility for different people to have their own individual understanding, w/o necessarily judging one interpretation as right and the others as wrong | |