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
- In speaking positively of God you fail to recognise his greatness
- 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
- Similarly, in Judaism write G-d and Islam he is not represented
- 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
- Come closer to the form of a ship through saying what it is not - much like God
- 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
- Analogy of a ship
- Inge: Separates relationship between humans and God
- VN results in the 'annihilation' of God with humanity
- = describing God through negation or negative language
- 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
- He redefines this instead that God is existence itself
- Acknowledge being God's creation
- Similar to Aristotle's first cause - God is the reason for everything
- Saying God exists limits God's greatness
- 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
- Tillich = cognitive - when speaking symbolically of God you are tapping into a universal KOG
- When speaking of God you actively participate in that belief
- 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
- = we can compare God to a lesser object and know possesses proportionally more of that quality
- Supports the cataphatic way
- Summa Theologica: 'our intellect knows him by different conceptions because we cannot see him as he is in Himself'
- Rejects U and E types of RL instead we speak analogically
- 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
- The Via Negativa - aka the apophatic way
Comments
No comments have yet been made