Religious language

?
  • Created by: 09riversj
  • Created on: 18-02-20 12:09
View mindmap
  • Religious language
    • The Via Negativa - aka the apophatic way
      • = describing God through negation or negative language
        • Aquinas: Rests on idea of a presupposedGod - CTG - different way of affirming this idea
      • Pseudo-Dionysius
        • In speaking positively of God you fail to recognise his greatness
          • Anthropomorphitises God
          • Even saying 'God is the higher goodness' humans are instinctively limited to comprehend this
      • Otto
        • God is 'beyond' and 'something wholly other'
        • Human language is too limited to describe God's greatness
          • Therefore should not use it at all
        • In 'The Mystical Theology' - he does not use gendered pronouns to describe God - associates him with a body or male
          • Similarly, in Judaism write G-d and Islam he is not represented
            • Reduces God's greatness
        • God's nature is revealed to us by the holy scripture' = word of God
      • Maimonides
        • Analogy of a ship
          • Come closer to the form of a ship through saying what it is not - much like God
            • Davies: The description could easily lead to a wardrobe
        • In the Torah God says 'I am that I am'
          • Only positive assertion
        • Davies: do not come closer to the concept of what God is - too vague - not sure whether the image you come to is actually God or not
      • Inge: Separates relationship between humans and God
        • VN results in the 'annihilation' of God with humanity
    • The Via Positiva - aka the cataphatic way
      • = use of symbolic language to describe God
      • Tillich
        • When speaking of God you actively participate in that belief
          • 'God is love' - implicitly negates the idea that God is limited to human love
          • Symbolic value of human language
        • Distinguishes between sign and symbol: symbol participates in what it is signalling
        • God is 'the ground of all being'
          • Saying God exists limits God's greatness
            • He redefines this instead that God is existence itself
              • In redefining God he could reduce him to nothing OR magnify his greatness
              • Dawkins: unable to validate symbolic truths claims - can easily say 'God is a **********' - protected by relativism / symbolism defines
              • Creates an arbitrary image of God who is subject to the beliefs of the individual
          • Acknowledge being God's creation
          • Similar to Aristotle's first cause - God is the reason for everything
        • Cognitive vs non-cognitive
          • Tillich = cognitive - when speaking symbolically of God you are tapping into a universal KOG
            • Anselm: Support with ontological argument - concept that God is TTWNGCBC
          • Randall = non-cognitive - speak symbolically of God - all religious experience is unique
            • Just as music speaks to people in a special, non-translatable way
            • Makes no sense to validate
            • E.g. over 100 Christian denominations - Jesus' salvation is different to many
    • Similarities
      • God is ineffable = too great to describe in words
      • Both acknowledgethe danger of limiting God when speaking of him
    • Analogy
      • = providing a point of reference with human experience to describe something outside
      • Aquinas
        • Rejects U and E types of RL instead we speak analogically
          • Univocal = God is good is same as human's goodness
          • Equivocal = God is good is different to human's goodness
        • Theory of likeness = if 2 things share attributes what is true of one may be true of the other 'same genus'
          • BUT this is an inaccurate form of classification - may differ in more significant ways
        • Theory of attribution
          • = God's attributes are reflected in the world - Natural Theology - beauty of nature
        • Theory of proportion
          • = we can compare God to a lesser object and know possesses proportionally more of that quality
            • A good person vs God - he possess infinite goodness
        • Supports the cataphatic way
        • Summa Theologica: 'our intellect knows him by different conceptions because we cannot see him as he is in Himself'
      • Von Hugel: analogises our relationship with God with how a dog may view human life
        • The dog may only gain an inkling of the meaning of human life - just as we may gain with God

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Philosophy resources »