religious language I

• Context:


  God is at an epistemic distance, so humans cannot know him.

  
  

  Theists believe in a God, so he must somehow be known to them.

  
  

  Religious language causes philosophers with a problem of knowing how anyone can speak about God, what this language means and what it tells us about God.

  - problems that theists also have
• Peter Vardy


  For humans to 'talk of God' is the equivalent of a goldfish talking about the world of dry land'

  We are unable to experience God empirically due to an epistemic distance. Beyond our finite understanding of God to properly linguistically describe what God is like.
• Apophatic way- the via negativa


  God is all loving, infinite, omnipresent-> we are saying God is not evil, not finite, not limited by time or space.

  
  

  The apophatic way- the argument that theological language is best approached by negation. We should use the via negativa (apophemi- to deny) and say what God is not

  
  

  We cannot say what God is.

  Our language fails to express correct knowledge of God.

  It is better to accept the mystery of God than accept the flawed concepts we have of him.

  
• Isaiah 40:18


  'With whom, then, will you compare God? To what image will you liken him?
• What is an advantage of the apophatic way?


  It stops us from anthropomorphising God.

  It maintains the integrity of God beyond our understanding

  Using the apophatic way saves humans from undermining God as a deity and his superior qualities.
• Can we empirically see God?


  'No-one has seen or can see God, the only begotten Son... he has declared him' John 1:18

  Due to the epistemic distance humans are not capable of understanding God, only Jesus can.
• Apophatic way - key thinkers


  Those from the apophatic school of thought will say we cannot use our human language that is so finite to describe and talk about God simply because our language is too limited to do so. God is beyond our understanding, beyond anything we can think of and beyond anything we have experienced.

  Applying your personal experiences when you are talking about God.
• Pseudo-Dionysius


  The late 5th century to early 6th century Christian theological and philosopher.

  He wrote The Mystical Theology, where he emphasised that God is 'beyond all being and knowledge'

  
  

  Behind every positive attempt to speak about God, lies a 'divine darkness'

  Analogy: to try and speak of God is the same as describing the intricacies of a rainforest when there is no light.

  
• The best way to approach religious language is;


  Humans need to ensure that they see God as a mystery or they will be missing the point and end up with a small idea of God.

  
  

  When applying our own experiences and concepts to God, we will end up with a boxed view of who God is.

  
  

  Our experience and knowledge of God is too finite and limited, as it is based on the empirical evidence of God (which is limited).

  
  

  We can only know God when we go beyond the realms of rationality, enter the unknown 'cloud of unknowing'.
• John Scotus Eriugena-


  9th century philosopher and theologian who translated Pseudo-Dionysius thus was heavily influenced by him.

  
  

  'God is beyond all meaning and intelligence, and he alone possesses immortality..

  'His light is called darkness because of its excellence'

  
  

  Similarly to Pseudo-Dionysius, Eriugena believes that because God and humanity are at an epistemic distance, humans are physically incapable of describing what God is like.

  
  

  It is impossible to refine God into a human description because he is beyond this.

  
  

  God is a mystery to all humans, we are unable to comprehend him.

  'We do not know what God is. God does not know what God is because God is not any created thing. Literally God is not, because God transcends being'

  
  

  When Eriugena says 'God is not', he doesn't mean there is no God, but rather he means God can't be said to exist in the way that other things exist in this world. We cannot equate God to the profane. Using apophatic/via negativa language to show God is different from those in our realm. Eriugena's ideas stop us from anthropomorphising God, and labelling human attributes onto God
• Moses Maimonides


  12th century Jewish theologian

  Influenced by Aristotle

  
• Analogy of the ship


  Spoke to several people and asked questions like 'what is it if it's not a sphere?'

  People responded with the answer of 'a ship'.

  
  

  Maimonides uses the ship analogy to explain that just in the same way that one can come to the understanding of what a ship is, they can also do the same for God using via negativa methods.

  
  

  e.g God is not evil, God is not in this space and time.

  
• Use of metaphors


  'There is nothing both literal and positive that we can say about God on the basis of any reasoning not prompted by the Divine revelation in the scriptures' and even then... most of what we can say informatively is metaphorical, allegorical, and untranslatable into literal positive truths'

  
  

  Maimonides says except from the scripture we have been given, there is nothing else we could say about God- limited to human language, allegories, metaphors, untranslatable

  Better to use via negativa and say what God is not, rather than incorrectly describe him positively.
• Psalm 65:2


  'Silence is praise to thee' (Psalm 65:2)

  It's better to be quiet about the mystery of God, rather than talk about God in a misconstrued way.

  
  

  By using via negativa to talk about God he means that God is incomparable.

  What all these thinkers do is provide a respectable and non-offensive way to talk about God.
• Example of the dog


  God is powerful- God is not lacking in power

  This dog is powerful- The dog is not lacking in power

  
  

  We are wrong to liken God to the likes of something earthly like a dog- God's power is incomparable to any power held on Earth.

  
• Can God do something to move a book off a shelf?


  Unlike humans, God does not have to use effort and energy to be able to move a book off a shelf. God's power transcends human power.

  
• Strengths


  Avoids us limiting God and we understand we are limited as finite beings when describing God.

  
  

  Biblically supported- maintains views within Christianity

  
  

  Maintains the integrity of God- preserves the 'otherness' of God.

  
  

  The apophatic tradition is more than just about denial- it's about moving beyond the human finite language we use, but approaching the spiritual language that is more in proportion to God's attributes.

  
  

  God can be spoken about in a way that is literally true and transcends culture and time- we have more of a chance of talking about God accurately using 'via negativa'- avoids misconceptions.
• Weaknesses


  Theists want to talk about their personal God, they want to speak positively about God.- do not want to mislead those in their description.
• W-Davis


  Only saying what God is not gives no indication of what it is.

  
  

  Apply the analogy of the ship- by asking if it's not a sphere what is it? gives no guarantee that one will come to the conclusion of a ship- doesn't build understanding on what it IS.

  Negative statements do not always arrive at a correct conclusion.
• W- Flew


  If we only speak about God through utilising negatives, then there is little difference from explaining nothingness.

  Not much information given on what God actually is- seen as actually pointless.
• W- Hick


  God is spoken about via positive in biblical texts. Argues that we can make positive statements about God through these interpretations- come from analogies in biblical scripture.
• Cataphatic way- via positiva


  Positive- kataphasis- to affirm - the idea that religious language should use positive terms to think about God.
• Examples


  Transcendent, omnibenevolent, God is a judge, God the father
• Luke 19:40


  'If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out' - Luke 19:40

  
  

  Directly rebuttal to Maimonides.

  They have to worship and praise God, because if they don't and use via negativa, the natural world will step up and do this role
• Univocal language


  Language that only has one meaning.

  e.g. a city

  
  

  Aquinas does not believe that we can use univocal language because our words cannot have one meaning for something in this world and be applied to God. God is infinite and we are finite so our words fall short.

  
• Equivocal language


  Language that has many meanings and all these meanings are equal

  e.g a mouse.

  
  

  Aquinas does not believe we can use equivocal language as the words we use to talk about God should not be equal to other things. God cannot be put on the same pedestal as humans, and doesn't appeal to the qualities of God.

  
• Aquinas' middle ground


  We cannot speak of God except to use the language we use of God. The middle ground is to use human language to talk about God, alongside with analogy as this is the only way available for humans to use.

  
  

  When using this finite language, humans must just understand that God is beyond our understanding and is a transcendent being.
• Religious language as an analogy


  Aquinas says that religious language is an analogy

  
  

  A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification e.g. hard as a rock
• Analogies within the Bible


  God is love- 1 John 4:7-21

  
  

  For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God- Deuteronomy 4:24

  
  

  God as a shepherd- Psalm 23
• LOAs-


  1- analogy of attribution

  2- analogy of proportion
• Analogy of attribution:


  When a term originally used concerning one thing is applied to another thing because one causes the other.

  
  

  He argued that humans can still use analogies to attribute certain qualities to God because there is a causal relationship between the two.

  e.g God is love, God is the cause of love so we can use it to reference God.

  Cause and effect relationship
• Example of the bull and the urine

  In the same way we look at the urine of a bull and see if it's healthy, we know that if it is healthy, the bull is also healthy.

  The bull causes urine and so we use it to understand how healthy it is.

  
• Analogy of proportion:


  When a term is used to refer to a quality a thing has in proportion to the reality or importance it has.
• Hick's analogy:


  A dog's loyalty is inferior to the loyalty of a friend, for example. Thus, in proportion to a friend's loyalty ,we see the loyalty of a dog as unproportional, we are able to understand there is a greater loyalty in the friend compared to the dog.

  
  

  In the same way, the qualities that God possesses can be understood as greater than that which humans possess.

  
• Application to God


  A human is said to be 'good' in proportion to what it means to have the conscious but finite nature of a human being.

  God is said to be 'good' in proportion to what it means to have God's infinite and eternal nature.

  Analogy of proportion is regularly used throughout the Bible when God is called 'King' or the 'Father'.
• Ian Ramsey-


  20th century philosopher.

  In support of Aquinas and the cataphatic way but builds up on these ideas.

  
  

  God is good- same word can be used to describe humans, limits God.

  
  

  God is infinitely good

  Qualifier- a word that shows the model can only be applied to God.

  Model- the analogy to help us express something about God.

  
  

  Humans simply cannot be 'infinitely good' because they are finite beings and there are limits to the goodness we can possess. Living in a post-lapsarian state due to the fall, humans are influenced by akrasia in which they cannot have no limits to their goodness. In this sense, only God can possess infinite goodness as he is a perfect being, and cannot be affected by human actions and qualities like sin.

  
• Strengths:


  A creator would logically give humans the ability to refer to him.

  
  

  Maintains the authority of the Bible

  Allows theists to talk positively about their God

  
  

  Humans can speak about God using their experience and talk of the divine without anthropomorphize God

  
  

  Allows a tangible understanding of God

  
  

  Understanding the limitations of finite beings referring to an infinite God as it is based on analogy.
• W: Pseudo-Dionysius


  More respectful to maintain the mystery of God
• W: Maimonides


  When human words are used, God will always end up being anthropomorphized.
• W: Hume


  We can't use analogies to compare two dissimilar things e.g., the world is more like a cabbage than a machine.

  
  

  S.L- Paley- watchmaker analogy