Intro:
- Talking meaningfully about something seems to require understanding it at least to some degree.
- The problem of religious language is that most Christians agree that God is totally beyond our understanding.
- In that case, how can Christians meaningfully talk about God?
- The three theories in this topic each attempt to explain how it’s possible to meaningfully talk about God, despite God being beyond our understanding.
- This topic is really about different views on the nature of the relationship between God and humans, and what follows from that about what we could know and say about God.
- Analogy claims the relationship includes participation/imago dei, so analogical language can refer imperfectly but accurately.
- Symbol claims the relationship is existential/affective, so language functions to connect and transform.
AO1: Aquinas’ theory of analogy (cataphatic)
- Aquinas argues that religious language cannot be univocal or equivocal.
- If words had exactly the same meaning for God and humans, God would be too similar to us.
- If they had completely different meanings, then language about God would be meaningless.
- He proposes analogy as a middle way.
- Humans are not identical to God, but nor are we totally different.
- So, our qualities can be used to speak about God in an analogical way.
- We begin with what we understand (human qualities) and use them to say something meaningful about God.
- Analogy of attribution means we can infer qualities in a cause from its effects.
- For example, human goodness and love suggest that God, as their source, is good.
- Analogy of proportion means that beings have qualities in proportion to their nature.
- Humans have goodness in a limited way, whereas God has goodness in an infinite and perfect way.
- So, God’s qualities are like ours but on a completely greater scale.
- This allows meaningful language about God while still recognising that God is beyond full human understanding.
- Ian Ramsey develops this further using models and qualifiers.
- A model is a familiar idea, such as goodness, used to help explain God.
- A qualifier, such as “infinite”, ensures we do not reduce God to human limitations.
- Together, models and qualifiers make religious language meaningful while preserving God’s transcendence.
- This leads to disclosure, where believers come to a deeper awareness of God.
AO2: Brummer’s critique of analogy
- Brummer argues analogy does not give real knowledge of God.
- He says analogy only tells us that God is the source of qualities like love, not what God is actually like.
- Analogies work when we understand both sides being compared.
- But since we cannot understand God, the comparison fails.
Counter
- Aquinas replies that analogy is based on a real connection.
- Human qualities come from God and reflect him in a limited way.
- So when we talk about love, the same quality exists in God, but in a higher form.
- This allows us to speak meaningfully about God.
Evaluation
- Brummer’s criticism fails.
- If human qualities come from God, then those qualities must exist in God in some real way.
- This supports Aquinas’ analogy, where words apply to God in a related but not identical sense.
- For example, if love means willing the good, then God has this perfectly.
- Even if we do not fully understand God, we can still say something true about him.
- Via negativa removes too much meaning by only saying what God is not.
- Analogy keeps some positive meaning while still recognising God is beyond us.
- So analogy is a better account than Brummer suggests.
AO2: Barth vs Aquinas on natural theology
- Aquinas supports natural theology by saying human reason comes from God’s image.
- Since we are morally responsible, our reason must still work.
- So, we can use reason to know some things about God, like his existence and basic nature.
Counter
- Barth argues this relies too much on human reason.
- Sin makes reason unreliable.
- Our finite minds cannot understand an infinite God.
- Using reason can lead to false ideas and even idolatry.
- He says we should rely on the Bible instead.
Evaluation
- Barth is right that reason can lead to mistakes, but rejecting it completely causes problems.
- Without reason, belief can become blind and open to superstition.
- Humans cannot avoid error, so we must use reason carefully rather than ignore it.
- Aquinas offers a better balance.
- He limits what reason can achieve, saying it only shows a basic first cause, not the full nature of God.
- He also uses analogy to avoid claiming full understanding.
- This respects God’s transcendence while still allowing some knowledge.
- So Aquinas provides a more reasonable middle position than Barth.
AO1: Religious language as symbolic
- Tillich argues that religious language is symbolic rather than literal, so it does not try to describe what God is.
- Instead, it connects a person’s mind to God in a similar way to a religious experience.
- For example, hearing “God be with you” or seeing a crucifix can create a sense of connection to God, rather than giving factual information.
- Symbols point beyond themselves and also participate in what they represent.
- This means they do not just refer to God, but help create a real sense of connection to a deeper level of reality.
- Tillich describes God as the “ground of being” and religion as expressing our “ultimate concern”.
- As an existentialist, he sees religion as rooted in human experience, especially our search for meaning and purpose.
- Religious language is therefore meaningful because it connects us to this deeper reality, even if we cannot describe God directly or fully understand him.
- Randall develops a more clearly non-cognitive version of symbolic language.
- He argues that symbols are subjective and do not connect us to any external spiritual reality.
- Instead, they should be understood by their function in human life.
- Symbols arouse emotions and motivate action, bind communities together, and communicate experiences beyond literal language.
- Randall compares religious language to music, art and poetry, which affect us deeply but do not describe objective facts.
- His approach avoids the problem in Tillich’s theory of explaining how symbols could genuinely connect us to a real spiritual realm.
AO2: How successfully symbols capture religious meaning
- Alston argues Tillich ignores the factual side of religious language.
- Religion makes claims about real things like salvation and the afterlife.
- Christians usually treat statements about God as true or false, not just symbolic.
- So, Tillich does not explain this important part of religious language.
Counter
- However, symbols capture the emotional and spiritual side of religion.
- Tillich focuses on how religious language connects people to God.
- For example, a crucifix can create a strong feeling of faith and meaning.
- This shows religious language is about experience, not just facts.
Evaluation
- However, Tillich’s view is too one-sided.
- While he explains the emotional side well, he ignores the importance of belief.
- Christians do not just feel something; they believe things about God, such as heaven and salvation.
- These beliefs shape their experiences and give them meaning.
- Spiritual feelings are directed at these beliefs, not separate from them.
- So, symbols alone cannot explain religious language.
- A full account must include both belief and experience.
- Tillich’s theory therefore fails to fully explain religious meaning.
AO2: Issues around the subjectivity of symbols and ‘participation’
- Tillich says symbols are not just factual or emotional, but also “participate” in reality.
- Hick argues this is unclear.
- If symbols really relate to reality, that is a factual claim which needs explanation.
- But Tillich refuses to explain it.
- It is also unclear how symbols like flags or religious images actually “participate” in something greater.
Counter
- Randall avoids this problem by rejecting participation.
- He says symbols do not connect us to God.
- Instead, they shape emotions, guide behaviour, and support communities.
- This avoids the need to explain any link to a divine reality.
Evaluation
- However, this makes religion purely human and removes its truth claims.
- Most believers think religion is about real truths, not just social practices.
- Without a link to reality, religious meaning becomes unstable and can change with culture.
- This makes it harder to explain strong commitment, sacrifice, and conversion.
- Tillich at least tries to preserve truth through participation, even if unclear.
- Randall’s view avoids the problem but loses too much.
- So Hick shows Tillich is unclear, but Randall’s solution is weaker overall.
AO1: Religious language as Myth
- Religious language can be understood as myth: a non-cognitive form of expression that does not describe factual reality, but communicates meaning, values, and purpose.
- Myths are not simply false stories, but narratives that shape how humans understand themselves and their place in the world.
- Different types of myth express this meaning in different ways.
- Creation myths explain the origin and purpose of the world, while myths of good and evil frame moral conflict and guide behaviour.
- Heroic myths present figures who model virtues such as courage and sacrifice.
- In this way, myths help people make sense of suffering and uncertainty, and transmit values across generations.
- Jung argued that myths are archetypal, sharing common themes such as creation, fall, and redemption.
- These reflect universal features of human life and the human psyche, helping individuals understand themselves and integrate aspects such as the shadow.
- Bultmann developed this through his programme of demythologisation.
- He argued that the New Testament uses mythological language, including miracles and the resurrection, which should not be taken literally by modern audiences.
- Instead, these myths express the impact of the kerygma as a call to repentance and a transformed moral life.
- Influenced by existentialism, Bultmann argued that myths communicate truths about human existence, including our finitude and openness to transcendence.
- Demythologisation aims to uncover these meanings so modern believers can encounter the same existential call.
- Thus, religious myths remain meaningful as expressions of moral and existential insight rather than factual descriptions.
AO2: Historicism vs Bultmann on inspiration
- Wright and Dodd try to find a middle position between blind faith and Bultmann.
- They accept that scripture is shaped by humans but still think it gives access to divine truth.
- Historical methods are used to support this idea (Dodd drawing on the kerygma and Wright’s criterions like similarity).
Counter
- However, this approach has a problem.
- If historical methods support Christianity, they should also support other religions with historical figures like the Buddha or Muhammad.
- But these religions disagree with each other.
- So history cannot show which religion is true.
- It only shows what people believed.
Evaluation
- This weakens Wright and Dodd’s position.
- Historical methods can show that early Christians believed in things like the resurrection, but not that these events actually happened.
- The same applies to other religions, which makes it hard to treat Christianity as uniquely true.
- So history cannot prove religious truth.
- It mainly shows how beliefs develop and spread.
- This supports Bultmann’s view that scripture reflects human experience rather than literal events.
- Therefore, Bultmann’s approach is more consistent and avoids the problems faced by historicism.
AO2: Bultmann vs subjectivity
- Wright criticises Bultmann for separating Jesus from history.
- Without history, faith could become a wishful story.
- It might also be shaped by modern ideas rather than truth.
- Wright says grounding faith in history keeps it stable and connected to the real Jesus.
Counter
- However, Bultmann is not simply more subjective.
- The problem is choosing between blind faith and total subjectivity.
- Both Wright and Bultmann try to avoid this.
- Wright focuses on history, while Bultmann focuses on shared religious experience shaped by the Gospel message.
- This gives some structure and avoids complete relativism.
Evaluation
- Wright’s criticism goes too far.
- Bultmann’s approach is not random, because it is guided by key Christian ideas.
- For example, the resurrection is linked to transformation and salvation, so interpreting it symbolically is still meaningful.
- Bultmann avoids both blind belief and complete scepticism.
- His view keeps the religious meaning while avoiding reliance on uncertain historical claims.
- Wright’s approach risks making faith depend on evidence that could be questioned or disproved.
- This makes belief less secure.
- So Bultmann provides a more stable way of understanding Christianity.