Summary
Religious Language summary for A-level Philosophy
- Course
- Institution
- Book
This is a summary for the chapter.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
OCR A-Level RS Summary Poster: the Cosmological Argument
-
OCR A-Level RS Summary Poster: the Teleological Argument
-
Soul, Mind and Body summary notes for AS/A2 Philosophy and Ethics
Seller
Follow
hollyymason
Reviews received
Content preview
Religious Language: Negative, Analogical or SymbolicAgnosticism The view that there is insufficient evidence for God, or the view that God
cannot be known
Truth-claim As a statement that asserts that something is factually true
Apophatic way (via A way of speaking about God and theological ideas using only terms
negativa) that say what God is not
Cataphatic way (via A range of ways to speak about God and theological ideas using only
positiva) terms that say what God is
Symbol A word or other kind of representation used to stand for something else
or to shed light on its meaning
Univocal language Words that mean the same thing when used in different contexts
Equivocal language Words that mean different things when used in different contexts
Analogy A comparison made between one thing and another thing in order to aid
understanding
Many agnostic thinkers argue that God is something we can neither know nor speak about. Their view
is that God is not available to reason, nor accessible to experiment and testing, and that none of the
words in the human vocabulary can communicate anything about God. Therefore, it can be argued to
be pointless to make statements about what God is like as we do not know for certain and we do not
have the language to communicate this effectively.
Theists have always tried to communicate their understandings of God through language. They give
him different titles in order to describe his nature, for example, the 99 names of Allah include ‘the
Gracious’, ‘the Merciful and ‘the Light’. Jews describe God as the ‘father of all’.
One of the issues for philosophers of religion is whether religious language can communicate ideas
effectively, even when these are ideas that go beyond our normal experiences in everyday life.
Perhaps the language of our human, finite world, is inadequate for conveying ideas about the divine
or perhaps in this world there are ways in which an understanding of God can be communicated.
What is religious language?
Religious language refers to any kind of language used in the context of religious discussion,
behaviour and worship – this could be specialist vocabulary or archaic liturgy, but it could also include
normal words used in religious context.
Sometimes religious language is used in the context of truth-claims. In other words, religious people
use language to make statements about what is, or is not, the case. When they say ‘There is no God
but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet’, or ‘Jesus is alive today’, they are asserting that their
religious beliefs are true (and by implication, that the opposite is false).
Similarly, when religious believers meet for worship, for rites of passage and for festivals, they do not
spend all of their time making truth-claims. They may use religious language to evoke feelings of
worship, to express their personal feelings and to praise God.
The apophatic way, or via negativa, as a way to speak about God
One of the problems of religious language is that if people are using their normal vocabulary, the have
words that only apply to imperfect, finite things that belong in this world. When people describe God
as a father or a judge, we think of human fathers and judges. They put a picture in our minds of a
being with limitations.
Some have therefore argued that when we use normal language, we are making God too small,
misrepresenting him and are disrespecting him. They have instead argued that we can only talk about
God in negative terms, saying what God is not. This is called the apophatic way, or via negativa
(negative way).
The apophatic way involves only using negatives when talking about God which emphasises the
difference between God and humanity. Those in favour of the via negativa argue that descriptions of
, God such as ‘immortal’, ‘invisible’ etc, try to give God positive attributes but are misleading and should
be avoided.
If we say that God is a king, then we think of a human who is male and has faults. Even if we say
‘God is love’ then we think about human love and all of its flaws and jealousies, because this is the
only love we know. But this is too flawed and temporary to be applied to God.
As soon as we start making positive statements and suggest that God has attributes that we
recognise in the physical world, we start making statements that are inaccurate which damage our
understanding. People who support the via negativa believe that it is better to accept the mysteries of
God than to try to pin God down using flawed concepts.
One well known modern thinking puzzle uses a similar idea. The puzzle is that you are given a 10m
length of fencing and asked to enclose the largest space you can. Most people would use the fencing
to enclose a circle of land, however, the best answer would be to make a small circle around yourself
and to declare that you are on the outside of the fence. The whole of the rest of the universe is
thereby enclosed. By pointing out what God is not, people can still manage to communicate the
infinity and the mystery of God.
One significant Christian figure from the sixth century was Pseudo-Dionysius (no one knows what he
was really called). His writings for a long time were attributed to someone called Pseudo-Dionysius
who lived at the Areopagus, but then it was realised that the writings did not fit the dates of Dionysius,
so the anonymous thinker and writer ended up with that name. He was a mystic, a Christian who
spent a lot of time in deep contemplation, reflecting on his own experiences of God.
Pseudo-Dionysius argued that the via negativa was the only way in which we can speak truthfully
about God, because he is beyond all human understanding and imagination. He was a follower of
Plato, believing in the division of the body and the soul. His ideas about God being beyond knowledge
and beyond the realms of rational thought greatly influenced writers throughout history, including
Aquinas.
Dionysius stated that it was counter-productive to speak of God as though God can be perceived by
the senses or as though we can reach God through reason. It is only through the recognition of the
limits of humanity that spiritual progress can be made. People who are genuinely seeking God need
to put aside their need for answers to everything, instead, they should allow God to speak to them in
stillness, accepting that God will always remain a mystery, and realising that until they are ready to
accept this, they will miss the point and end up with a God who is too small.
The great Jewish thinker, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) was also a supporter of via negativa. He
thought that the best way to convey an accurate understanding of the nature of God was to explain
what God is not. In this way, he hoped, people could move closer to an understanding of what God is,
without limiting him.
In Buddhist texts, the via negativa is used in an attempt to convey central beliefs; the nature of
nirvana, and the nature of Buddha are concepts that are notoriously difficult to describe.
Does the apophatic way (via negativa) provide an effective method for theological discussion?
For some people, this way is best for attempting to communicate ideas about God, because it is a
way of recognising that we have to beyond our normal everyday experiences and language in order to
encounter God. It does not place a limit on God by giving a point of reference that is within the
physical world. It is a way of conveying the essential otherness and mystery of God, and underlining
the belief that he is not like us.
Unlike symbolism or analogy, the via negative applies equally well in different cultures and in different
periods of history. The apophatic way does not use figurative language which demands interpretation,
so it can be widely understood.
The apophatic way can also be helpful for those who already believe, as a reminder not to belittle
God.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hollyymason. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.57. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now