relious lang 1

• types of language 


  univocal - same word, same meaning and used in the same context

  • eg doormat vs bathmat

  equivocal - same word, different meaning and used in different contexts

  • animal bat vs cricket bat

  analogical - same word, SIMILAR meaning/ sense but not exactly in the same sense

  • eg smooth wine is not smooth in the way a smooth floor is - it is the same ideas of a lack of roughness being expressed
• Analogy - Ramsey 


  you suddenly understand religious lang, and then become committed. we reach a moment of discernment - using models and qualifiers

  • Model = analogy; helped us understand something about God, e.g. God as Good - model = good
  • Qualifier = a word or phrase added to a model to indicate the complete nature of God, e.g. qualify God = good by saying God's goodness was infinite.

  The qualifier makes us think of Gods goodness in greater depth until we have an insight into Gods goodness, and we will then respond to this insight with awe.
• Analogy (of proportion) - Hick 


  developed Aquinas' analogy of proportion

  We possess qualities like those of God as we were created in his image, these are in a lesser proportion as we are inferior to God.

  eg dog as faithful vs human as faithful - difference between the two but similarity in the analogy
• Analogy 


  Strengths:

  • doesn't anthropomorphise God - humanise - no limits on him - he is different to us - Kant - phenomenal vs noumental
  • Jesus used analogies - mustard seed
  • Bible uses analogy to describe God - father
  • Analogy allows us to make assertions about God in human language. Can talk about key attributes such as goodness.
  • analogies can be interpreted differently without being seen as right or wrong which allows theists to explore their faith in their own way.
• Analogy

  Weaknessess:

  • needs to be translated to univocal language to first be understood - when saying God is good, we don't know exactly how God's love fully relates to human love - on what scale - creates an unclear picture of him
  • some Biblical statements are literal - eg ‘Jesus died for our sins’
  • Analogy of attribution: Problem of evil – does God also contain these qualities (nb Aquinas would respond by saying evil is a privation of good.)

  compared with the accuracy of via negativa and the deeper/emotional connection created with symbols
• Symbols


  Characteristics

  1. Point beyond themselves to something else
  2. It participates in that to which it points
  3. Opens up levels of reality which otherwise are closed for us
  4. Unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul
  5. Symbols cannot be produced intentionally
  6. Like living beings, they grow and they die
• Strengths:

  • point beyond themselves - emotional connection to not only the symbol but also to what it points to - eg cross represents sacrifice and love of God - insight into God's loving nature
  • participating and interpreting with symbols means that we are involved with the ultimate reality - insight into God
  • lots of examples of symbols with deep meaning
  • gives more of an idea of God than via negativa - we reach a conclusion
• Symbols

  Weaknesses:

  Hick: Tilich over-emphasises the emotional nature of religious lang - seems like there is no factual content - ignores the fundamentals of religion

  • needs interpreting - limited human knowledge - we may be wrong - God as a father - our interpretation of this statement is affected by individual experiences
  • too subjective - making assumptions - culturally relative
• Tillich

  emotional nature of symbols

  “God the Father”. Beyond the intellectual concept of what a Father is and does, the phrase inspires nuanced, complex and meaningful feeling that could include a sense of protection, power and awe. As such, the type of understanding gained goes beyond the finite world we can access empirically. Therefore, religious discourse is certainly comprehensible as it fulfils the function of providing speakers and listeners with a deeper, more personal and emotional understanding of God.
• Problems with religious lang

  1. Religious language is fully comprehensible to human minds, and therefore is fully meaningful and clear.
  2. Human beings cannot fully comprehend talk about God, however, we can have a vague or basic understanding, so that religious language is still meaningful and important.
  3. Religious language is incomprehensible, and therefore meaningless. No one talking about God knows what they are saying. No one hearing about God understands what they are being told.
• Via negativa

  EVAL:

  • avoids anthropomorphism
  • does not place a limit on God but recognises the transcendence and essential ‘otherness’ of Him
  • not helpful for those with no prior knowledge of God - no starting point
  • no need for interpretation
  • William James - ineffable

  Brian Davies: negative terms give no clue to what/ who God actually is - ship analogy - we may think it is a coffin or wardrobe

  
  

  Flew: argue God out of existence - invisible and soundless - nothingness