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.
- Via negativa claims the relationship is asymmetrical, so language must negate in order to purify.
- 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: Via Negativa (apophatic)
- The Via Negativa teaches that we cannot say what God is, only what God is not.
- This is because God is beyond human understanding.
- For example, saying God is not darkness does not mean God is light, but that God is beyond such categories.
- Pseudo-Dionysius uses the image of Moses on Mount Sinai.
- The cloud represents the limits of human knowledge.
- To approach God, we must let go of our usual ways of thinking.
- Via Negativa encourages this by rejecting descriptions of God.
- It leads to a state where knowledge is set aside.
- Dionysius says this allows a kind of union with God beyond thought.
- So, it is meaningful because it helps the soul approach God.
AO2: Maimonides vs Brian Davies
- Maimonides argues negative language is better than analogy for understanding God.
- Positive comparisons risk being misleading and too human-like.
- They do not capture what something really is.
- Negative descriptions instead rule out what something is not.
- By removing false ideas, we move closer to understanding God.
Counter
- Brian Davies argues this does not work.
- Negative language only helps if we know all the possible options.
- With God, we do not know these options.
- So, ruling things out does not increase our understanding.
- Aquinas instead uses analogy, saying human qualities reflect God in a limited way.
- This gives some indirect knowledge of God.
Evaluation
- However, another version of via negativa avoids this problem.
- Pseudo-Dionysius rejects the idea that we can know God through concepts at all.
- Instead, negative language removes false ideas and leads to a direct, non-conceptual awareness of God.
- This is a kind of mystical knowledge rather than intellectual understanding.
- So, Davies’ criticism only works if we assume knowledge must be conceptual.
- If mystical awareness counts as knowledge, then via negativa can still succeed.
- This makes it a stronger defence than analogy in this context.
AO2: Via Negativa vs the bible & Aquina
- The Bible seems to conflict with via negativa.
- It describes God positively, for example “God is love” and “God is spirit.”
- God even describes himself with personal qualities like jealousy.
- This suggests we can meaningfully say what God is like, not just what God is not.
Counter
- Pseudo-Dionysius replies that these statements do not describe God’s essence.
- They describe the effects God causes in the world, like love and life.
- Humans have these qualities because they come from God.
- However, since God is beyond human understanding, these statements must be “unsaid.”
Evaluation
- However, this reply still suggests a real link between God and human qualities.
- If love comes from God, then there must be some genuine similarity between God and love.
- This supports Aquinas’ analogy, where words apply to God in a related but not identical way.
- We can therefore say “God is love” meaningfully, without claiming God is love in exactly the same human sense.
- This fits the Bible more naturally, since scripture clearly uses positive descriptions of God.
- Via negativa struggles to explain why such language is used so consistently.
- Analogy preserves meaning while still recognising God’s transcendence, making it a better account.
AO1: Aquinas’ theory of analogy (cataphatic)
- Aquinas argues that religious language cannot be univocal or equivocal.
- If words meant exactly the same, God would be too similar to humans.
- If they meant completely different things, language about God would be meaningless.
- He proposes analogy as a middle way.
- Humans are not the same as God, but not totally different either.
- So, we can use human qualities to speak about God in an analogical way.
- Analogy of attribution means we infer God’s qualities from their effects in the world.
- Human goodness and love point to God as their source.
- Analogy of proportion means qualities exist in different degrees depending on the being.
- Humans have goodness in a limited way, while God has it infinitely.
- So we can say E.g., God has a quality of love that is like human love but proportionally greater.
- This allows meaningful language about God while recognising that God is beyond full human understanding.
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, not literal.
- It does not describe God, but connects a person 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 rather than convey 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 between the human mind and 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.
- So, religious language is meaningful because it connects us to this deeper reality, even if God cannot be directly described or fully understood.
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.