Negative, Analogical or Symbolic Religious language.

AO1 BLURTING PROMPTS (1–15)

1. What is religious language and what does it refer to?

2. What is the core debate behind religious language?

3. What are the two types of language used in the religious language debate?

4. What is the apophatic way?

5. What is the cataphatic way?

6. What is the via negativa and where does the idea come from?

7. What were Moses Maimonides’ contributions to the via negativa?

8. How was the via negativa developed by early Christian thinkers?

9. How does the via negativa contrast with the via positiva?

10. How has the via negativa been influential within Christianity?

11. How does the via negativa enable understanding of theological discussion?

12. What are the main criticisms that say the via negativa does not enable understanding?

13. What is meant by analogy in the cataphatic way?

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

15. What is the analogy of attribution?

AO2 BLURTING PROMPTS (16–30)

16. How can the analogy of attribution be summarised?

17. What is the analogy of proportion?

18. How can the analogy of proportion be summarised?

19. What is Ian Ramsey’s theory of models and qualifiers?

20. Why is Aquinas’ analogical approach an effective way of expressing language about God?

21. Why is Aquinas’ analogical approach not an effective way of expressing language about God?

22. What is symbolism in religious language according to Paul Tillich?

23. Why are symbols more powerful than signs?

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

25. How do symbols help us talk about and understand God?

26. Why do symbols not help us talk about or understand God?

27. How does J.R. Randall defend symbolic religious language?

28. Why does Paul Edwards argue symbols are meaningless?

29. Why does William Alston argue symbols cannot establish truth?

30. How might differing interpretations of symbols limit their effectiveness in understanding God?

AO1 ANSWERS (1–15)

1. Religious language is the written and spoken language used by believers to talk about God, beliefs and religious experiences, using everyday words but giving them deeper meaning.

2. The debate asks whether anything meaningful can be said about God, with believers saying yes because God is real and Logical Positivists saying statements about God are meaningless.

3. Cognitive language conveys factual claims, while non-cognitive language conveys emotions, feelings and metaphysical ideas.

4. The apophatic way says we should describe God only by saying what God isn’t because human language cannot adequately describe Him.

5. The cataphatic way says positive statements can be made about God by studying creation, revelation, prayer and religious experience.

6. The via negativa says God is ineffable and beyond human understanding, so God is explained by what He isn’t; it comes from Neo-Platonists like Plotinus and Augustine and is found in Pseudo-Dionysius and Maimonides.

7. Maimonides said human language is anthropomorphic and inadequate, the Torah uses imperfect human language, and “silence is the best praise,” so God should be shown through what He is not.

8. Basil the Great and the Cappadocian Fathers developed the via negativa by stressing the weakness of human intellect and language when describing God.

9. The via negativa rejects positive statements because they limit God, while the via positiva uses them; even God’s existence must be qualified because it is unlike ours.

10. It has highlighted God’s transcendence and otherness in Christianity and is used to express the ineffable nature of religious experiences.

11. It gives insight into God by avoiding misunderstandings, avoids anthropomorphism, shows God’s majesty and protects the mystery of God, and supports explaining ineffable experiences.

12. It doesn’t help understanding because people without experience gain no meaning, it risks reducing God to nothingness, conflicts with scripture’s positive descriptions, and gives no indication of God’s actual nature.

13. Analogy explains something unfamiliar through something familiar; Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language because both fail to describe God meaningfully.

14. Aquinas used analogy as a middle way between univocal and equivocal language to allow meaningful statements such as “God is good” without reducing God to human goodness or making the term meaningless.

15. The analogy of attribution says God is the perfect source of all qualities, and creatures reflect these qualities secondarily and analogically, like a bull’s health shown in its urine.

AO2 ANSWERS (16–30)

16. Humans show goodness in a limited way while God, as Creator, is the perfect source of goodness, so the term applies similarly but God’s goodness is beyond human moral understanding.

17. The analogy of proportion says humans possess qualities like God’s but in lesser proportion because humans are inferior in nature to God.

18. Humans have qualities like goodness and wisdom in lesser proportion, and the meaning of these terms is extended upward proportionately to describe God’s perfect nature.

19. Ramsey said religious words act as models that show something about God but require qualifiers like “infinitely” to show their deeper meaning because God is beyond human experience.

20. Aquinas’ analogy is effective because analogy explains unfamiliar ideas, uses an empirical base in creation, avoids anthropomorphism and helps illustrate concepts like divine agape love.

21. It is not effective because it depends on belief in creation, natural evil challenges the conclusions, Logical Positivists say analogical statements are meaningless, and many believers take scripture literally rather than analogically.

22. Tillich said religious language is symbolic, not literal, and symbols participate in what they represent and point toward ultimate reality (“Being-Itself”).

23. Symbols are more powerful than signs because they participate in the meaning of what they represent, such as the cross communicating Jesus’ sacrifice.

24. Tillich said symbols appeal to the imaginative side of humanity, open up new levels of reality, and point beyond themselves to deeper truths like God’s presence.

25. Symbols help because they stir emotion, unite communities, give insight into difficult concepts and symbolically point toward ultimate reality.

26. They don’t help because symbols change meaning, cannot fully capture a transcendent God, depend on the interpreter, cannot be empirically verified, and cannot establish objective truth.

27. Randall argued symbolic language enriches culture, stirs emotion and helps people understand difficult concepts through shared symbols.

28. Edwards argued symbols are meaningless because they don’t provide factual knowledge and cannot be verified or falsified.

29. Alston argued symbols cannot establish truth because we cannot know if they accurately represent God.

30. Differing interpretations limit effectiveness because symbols may convey different or no meaning depending on the person and cannot guarantee a shared understanding of God.