Introduction

The problem of religious language

Religious language is about God or religion. There is a problem for religious language, which is that most theologians agree that God is beyond human understanding. In that case, how can we meaningfully talk about something that we don’t understand? Religious theories of religious language aim at solving this problem.

This topic is about evaluating three classic theories which attempt to solve this problem and account for the meaning of religious language.

Via Negativa (apophatic way) argues that since we can’t understand God, the only meaningful way to talk about God is to say what God is not.

Aquinas’ theory of analogy (via positive / cataphatic way) argues that although we can’t know or say what God is, we can know and thus say what God is like.

Tillich’s symbolic approach to religious language claims that religious language doesn’t try to refer to God but instead connects our minds to God.

Via Negativa

In philosophical terminology, positive language means talking about what something is while negative language means talking about what something is not.

Pseudo-Dionyisus argued that since God is completely beyond our understanding, we cannot possibly talk about what God is. God is ‘beyond every assertion’, beyond language. He cannot be described is positive terms i.e by saying what God ‘is’. God can only be described negatively or ‘via negativa’ – by saying what God is ‘not’. This approach is also called the apophatic way.

By negation Dionysius does not mean privation. On the Via Negativa view, saying ‘God is not living’ is not the same as saying ‘God is lifeless’. It means that God is beyond the living/lifeless distinction. By saying ‘God is not darkness’ we aren’t implying that ‘God is light’. We are accepting that God is beyond the light/darkness distinction.

If God is beyond all language, then God is beyond all distinctions we can make. It’s like saying God does not exist on any spectrum of meaning that we can possibly imagine.

“there is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth – it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial.” – Pseudo-Dionysius.

Knowing God by knowing nothing. Trying to understand God is not just pointless but actually counterproductive because it separates us from God.

Pseudo-Dionysius illustrates with Moses’ ascending of Mount Sinai to receive the ten commandments from God. He describes Moses as plunging into the ‘darkness of unknowing’, ‘renouncing all that the mind may conceive’.

“as we plunge into darkness which is beyond intellect, we shall find ourselves not simply running short of words but actually speechless and unknowing. The more we climb, the more language falters, and when we have moved to the top of our ascent, language will turn silent completely, since we will be near to One which is indescribable” – Pseudo-Dionysius

Accepting the Via Negativa view helps us to break free from our grasping for knowledge of God. This causes an “inactivity of all knowledge” which leads one to be “supremely united to the completely unknown”. By this, one “knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing”. This is not knowledge in the sense of the mind understanding God; that is impossible. It is knowledge gained through “unity” with God.

Exactly what Pseudo-Dionysius means by ‘unity’ is a matter of debate. He clearly at least thinks that following the Via Negativa method and giving up on trying to understand what God is actually helps you become closer to God in some way.

The idea that it is our desire to know God which stands in the way of our unity with God sounds very similar to the theme of the fall. Adam and Eve’s disobedience and subsequent separation from God was caused by their egocentric desire for knowledge. Saving humanity from the pride that leads to sin is the goal of Christianity. So Pseudo-Dionysius’ notion of ‘unity’ may be vague, but it deeply resonates with the central theme of Christianity.

The idea that it is our desire to know God which stands in the way of our unity with God sounds very similar to the theme of the fall. Adam and Eve’s disobedience and subsequent separation from God was caused by their egocentric desire for knowledge. Saving humanity from pride which leads to sin is the goal of Christianity. Pseudo-Dionysius’ notion of ‘unity’ may be vague, but it deeply resonates with the central theme of Christianity.

A further strength of this approach is that ‘unity’ with the divine being the centre of religious experience is universally attested to by mystics like St Theresa of Avila and those who have studied mysticism like William James.

Debates over Via Negativa & the Bible

The main strength of the Via Negativa approach is that it is true to God’s transcendence and otherness. Almost all theologians agree on God’s transcendence. Otto called God “wholly other”, meaning radically different to anything else we experience or understand. Augustine comments that whatever we can comprehend is not God.

This leads to a further strength in helping us to understand the Bible and its descriptions of God’s immanence. Maimodenies argued that seemingly positive descriptions of God in the Bible should be interpreted as referring to God’s immanence, such as God’s actions in the world.

Via Negativa is thus often defended by distinguishing between:

• God’s transcendence: God’s actual but unknowable being which can only be described negatively.
• God’s immanence: God’s actions in the physical world which can be described positively, since God’s unknowable being/nature is not being described. This is what all biblical language about God is argued to refer to.

Weakness: The Bible describes God in positive terms.

There are other descriptions of God as having a ‘face’ or ‘walking’ in the garden of Eden. These can be dismissed as metaphorical language, or perhaps just referring to God’s immanent actions.

However, there are Bible passages which seem to describe God’s nature itself that seem difficult for Maimodenies’ argument to explain.

In the Gospel of John God is described positively: “God is love” and “God is spirit”. God even himself describes himself in positive terms: ”I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” (Exodus 20:5).

So, the Bible seems to suggest that via posititiva language about God is valid. The Via Negativa approach appears to conflict with the religious language of the Bible.

Via Negativa vs the problem of religious language

Strength: Maimodenies’ ship example

Maimonides argued for the via negative view. He used the illustration of a ship. Imagine someone who knows that something called a ‘ship’ exists, but doesn’t know exactly what the name applies to. Maimonides then runs through ten persons using examples of negative language, that a ship is not e.g., a sphere, flat object, property, plant, mineral etc.

“It is clear that this tenth person has almost arrived at the correct notion of a ‘ship’ by the foregoing negative attributes” – Maimonides.

“you will come nearer to the knowledge and comprehension of God by the negative attributes” – Maimonides

Weakness: Brian Davies criticises Maimodenies.

He points out that negative language only allows us to actually gain knowledge in “special cases”, such as when we know exactly what possibilities there are for a thing. E.g., if we know a person is not left-handed and not ambidextrous, then we can know they are right-handed.

However, most cases (including God) are not like that.

“Suppose I say that there is something in my room, and suppose I reject every suggestion you make as to what is actually there. In that case, you will get no idea at all about what is in my room. And, going back to the above quotation from Maimonides, it is simply wrong to say that someone who has all the negations mentioned in it ‘has almost arrived at the correct notion of a “ship” ‘. Such a person could equally well be thinking of a wardrobe or a coffin.” – Davies

Negative language about God does not grant us any further knowledge or idea of what we are actually talking about.

Via Negative vs Aquinas on everyday Christian meaning

Strength: The average Christian probably is in some danger of anthropomorphising God. 

In popular imagination God is often imagined in human terms, sometimes due to religious art. A strength of the Via Negativa approach is in helping Christians not have this mistaken view of God.

Weakness: Aquinas’ rejection of via negativa regarding everyday Christian meaning

Aquinas claims of negative language that it is “not what people want to say when they talk about God.”

Talking about God Via Negativa is not really how most religious believers want or intend to talk about God. We could add to Aquinas’ point that the religious language you hear during worship and even in the Bible is not consistent with Via Negativa.

E.g., the Bible says “God is love” and “God is spirit”. In Exodus God even himself describes himself in positive terms, saying “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.”

Aquinas thinks his theory better captures religious language. The analogy of attribution and especially proportion arguably actually are ideas that the average Christian accepts.

When speaking about God, they probably do accept that their description depends on their human experience/understanding which they are attributing to God by analogy, yet accepting that God is nonetheless infinitely greater.

When Christians (or the Bible) says ‘God is love’, Christians know that God’s love is beyond anything we can understand, but it is still analogous to human love, though proportionally greater.

Aquinas’ theory of Analogy

Aquinas thought we could go a bit further than only talking about God negatively. We can talk about God meaningfully in positive terms (cataphatic way) if we speak analogically. An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand by using a comparison with something familiar and easier to understand.

Aquinas first explains why standard cataphatic approaches fail.

Simply attempting to say what God is by applying human concepts to God is called univocal language: when words have one meaning. E.g. when I say God is loving, the word ‘loving’ means the same as when I say humans are loving. This fails because God is beyond our understanding. We can’t apply the same word to God as we do for humans because God is a transcendent being. We can understand the word when applied to humans, but we can’t understand God, so can’t use the same word for God.

The opposite cataphatic approach is accepting that words simply have a completely different meaning when applied to God than when applied to humans. This is called Equivocal language. E.g. when I say God is loving, the word ‘loving’ has a different meaning to when I say humans are loving. This also fails. Since we don’t know what God is, we simply wouldn’t know what the word loving means when applied to God, so it would be meaningless.

Aquinas thinks he can find a successful middle ground between these approaches to show how we can meaningfully talk about God.

We are not the same as God – that’s why univocal language fails. However, nor are we totally different to God. As Genesis says, we are created in God’s image and likeness. We are not the same as God, nor are we totally different to God. The middle ground is that we are like God. We are analogous to God.

So, religious language such as “God is love” can be understood analogically, as claiming that God has a quality of love that is like/analogous to the human quality of love.

Analogy of Attribution. Aquinas thinks we can tell something about the creator of a thing by looking at what it causes. Certain effects flow from certain causes and are stamped with something of the character of their creator. This means we can attribute qualities to the creator of a thing that are analogous to those of its creation. Aquinas used the illustration of seeing that the urine of a Bull is healthy, from which we can conclude (and therefore meaningfully say) that the Bull is has an analogous quality of health, even if we can’t see the Bull. Similarly, we humans have qualities like power, love and knowledge, so we can conclude (and therefore meaningfully say) that our creator also has qualities of power, love and knowledge that are analogous to our own.

Analogy of Proportion. A being has a quality in a degree relative to its being. Consider this example: A virus has life, plants have life, humans have life, God has life. This illustrates that different being have a quality like life to different degrees of proportion depending on their being. God is the greatest being and thus has qualities to a greater degree of proportion than humans. Thus we can now add to our statement that God has qualities analogous to ours that he has them in greater proportion. So God’s love/knowledge/power is like ours but proportionally greater.

Analogy & Aquinas’ natural theology

A strength of Aquinas’ theory of analogy is its basis in his natural theology. Aquinas accepted that human reason could never know or understand God’s infinite divine nature. However, he argued that human reason can gain lesser knowledge of God, including God’s nature by analogy, through the analogies of attribution and proportion. This makes Aquinas a proponent of natural theology through reason, which he claimed could support faith in God. Natural theology is the view that human reason is capable of knowing something of God, in this case what his qualities are analogous to.

Reason is involved in Aquinas’ theory of analogy, in figuring out and understanding the analogies of attribution and proportion. On the basis of that reasoning Aquinas concludes that we can meaningfully talk about God’s qualities by analogy.

Weakness: Natural theology places a dangerous overreliance on human reason. Karl Barth was influenced by Augustine, who claimed that after the Fall our ability to reason become corrupted by original sin.

Barth’s argument is that is therefore dangerous to rely on human reason to know anything of God, including God’s morality.

“the finite has no capacity for the infinite” – Karl Barth.

Our finite minds cannot grasp God’s infinite being. Whatever humans discover through reason is not divine, so to think it is divine is idolatry – believing earthly things are God. Idolatry can lead to worship of nations and even to movements like the Nazis. After the corruption of the fall, human reason cannot reach God or God’s morality. That is not our telos. Only faith in God’s revelation in the bible is valid.

Whether analogy about God can be accurate

Strength: Aquinas’ theory of analogy cleverly manages to avoid the problems of standard cataphatic language by finding a middle ground between them.

Univocal language fails because we are not the same as God and equivocal language fails because we are not completely different. The truth does seem to be in the middle – that we are like God, that God has qualities analogous to ours but proportionally greater.

This is also biblically supported. Genesis says we are made in God’s ‘image and likeness’, suggesting a likeness between us and God.

Weakness: The accuracy problem.

Brummer objects that the analogy of proportion fails. It claims that a being has a quality to a certain degree relative to its nature. Human love is to human nature like divine love is to divine nature.

However, Brummer points out that we do not know God’s nature, so we cannot know the way in which God is loving. We are merely saying that God is not loving in the way humans are loving, but we cannot say in what way God is loving.

“The analogy of proportionality thus takes us no further than a negative theology” – Brummer

The analogy of attribution is meant to deal with this issue. If we can say that God’s love, whatever it is, is analogous to human love. We can then further add that God has love proportional to his nature.

However, Brummer also criticises the analogy of attribution. God is the source of everything. Attribution can tell us that God is the source of human qualities, but it cannot tell us in what way God has those qualities. Since humans are loving, we can attribute to God love to God. However, we are merely saying that God is the source of love. Analogy does not enable us to say in what way God is loving.

Tillich’s theory of symbolic language

Paul Tillich thought that most religious language had symbolic meaning rather than literal.

Literal meaning is when words refer to objects or things. Such words are like signs. They are arbitrary symbols that we have created to refer to things. Religious language cannot have literal meaning as it cannot refer to God, since God is beyond our understanding.

Religious symbols are not arbitrarily invented. They grow out of the culture and collective unconscious minds of a religious tradition. This makes religious symbols part of religion. Signs merely point but symbols also participate in what they point to.

Tillich uses the illustration of a national flag. It isn’t a random sign pointing to a country. It is part of what it points to. It participates in the power and dignity of a nation. Seeing a flag mentally connects a citizen to their country.

Similarly, the function of religious symbols is to spiritually connect people to the religious dimension of reality.

The meaning of religious language is the spiritual connection to God it inspires through symbolic participation in the being of God.

Tillich claimed that God is also a symbol for the ‘ground of being’ or for ‘being-itself’. It’s difficult to make full sense of this idea.

Consider what happens when a Christian looks at a crucifix. It means something to them. A crucifix is not a word, but it still inspires meaning in the mind of a person who sees it. Tillich thinks religious language functions like that. When a person hears religious language, e.g. “God be with you”, the effect on their mind is just like the effect of seeing a crucifix. The meaning they feel is a result of the words functioning symbolically.

Tillich’s theory of participation is that there are four elements to symbolic meaning:

1. Pointing to something beyond itself. The crucifix ‘points’ to Christianity, religious language ‘points’ to religion or God.
2. Participation: symbolic language participates in what it points to. The crucifix is part of Christianity, it doesn’t just point to it. Religious language participates in the being of God, or in being-itself.
3. Reality: To be symbolic has to reveal a deeper meaning, they open up spiritual levels of reality that are otherwise closed to us.
4. Soul: Symbols open up the levels of dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality.

Tillich thought symbolic language was like a poetry or a piece of art. It can offer a new view of life or a new meaning to life, but is hard to explain to people who haven’t experienced it. Religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards and connecting us to the ultimate reality.

The vision of God which he called the ‘ground of being’. We have come to know this through symbols.

Religious language points to Christianity, is part of it and thereby becomes a bridge for our soul to connect to God.

So, Tillich has a very different approach to the Via Negativa and Aquinas. The main strength of his theory is that it side-steps the meaning-issue of our human inability to understand God. It does this by suggesting that religious language is symbolic which points to God, participates in God, opens up spiritual levels of reality which connect to dimensions of our soul. Essentially, religious language functions as a kind of religious experience which connects human souls to God without their needing to understand God. Religious language is meaningful insofar as it participates in the being of God.

How successfully symbols capture religious meaning

Strength: Tillich’s theory successfully captures the spiritual side of religious language

Tillich seems more successful than other approaches in capturing how everyday Christian language actually functions, especially its relation to spiritual experience. When a Christian looks at a crucifix or prays, they can have deep spiritual feelings. This is often the most important thing to them. Tillich’s theory seems successful because the most important element of religious language is the spiritual feelings it evokes, not cold factual descriptive beliefs.

Weakness: William Alston objects that religious language must involve facts

Alston argues that important Christian doctrines like heaven and hell have to be taken as factual, not as symbolic. He claims “there is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or false.” Religion religion is concerned with objective factual things such as our salvation and afterlife. In that case, religious language cannot merely be symbolic. John Hick makes a similar point, adding that philosophical language about God, such as God being non-dependent (necessary) is not symbolic.

We can add that Christians tend to think that when using religious language, they express beliefs about God which can be true or false. Cognitivism is a key element of religious meaning for many Christians. Tillich fails for not adequately accounting for the cognitive element of religious language.

Issues around the subjectivity of symbols and ‘participation’

Strength: Tillich seems to solve the problem of religious language.

Tillich seems to solve the difficulty of meaningfully talking about a God that is beyond our understanding. Religious language functions as a sort of spiritual or religious experience which connects human souls to God. We don’t need to understand God to be connected to God. Religious language is meaningful insofar as it participates in being-itself, i.e, in God.

Weakness: The issue of the subjectivity and vagueness of ‘participation’.

Hick argues that Tillich’s flag illustration does not adequately explain how participation works.

Firstly it isn’t clear how a flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation. Secondly, it’s not clear whether religious symbols are supposed to participate in the ground of being (God) in the same way.

Finally, it is a traditional religious doctrine that there is a connection between God and nature. In some sense the world is already thought to participate in God already. So, it’s not clear how the way that symbols participate in the being of God is different to the way that everything else already does.

“Unfortunately Tillich does not fully define or clarify this central notion of participation … Does this symbol participate in Being-itself in the same sense as that in which a flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation? And what precisely is this sense?  … Consequently, itis not clear in what respect the case of a religious symbol is supposed to be similar. Again, according to Tillich, everything that exists participates in Being-itself: what then is the difference between the way in which symbols participate in Being-itself and the way in which everything else participates in it?” – Hick

It’s not clear how exactly symbols ‘participate’ in the higher spiritual levels of reality they somehow connect us to.

Hick’s issue can be developed into a boarder concern about the subjectivity of symbols. Participation and connection is too vague which suggests it is subjective. Symbolic meaning could merely be in our minds. Symbols might not connect us to anything beyond or above ourselves.

This is the problem with separating religious meaning from factual meaning and instead connecting it to this vague idea of spiritual connection to the ‘ground of being’. Tillich reduces God and religion to human feelings.

Randall’s theory of symbolic religious language

Randall developed his own theory of symbolic language which was explicitly non-cognitive. Tillich’s theory had at least some seemingly cognitive elements to it, e.g. the participation of symbols in ‘being itself’ and the connecting of our souls to spiritual levels of reality.

Strength: Randall’s theory is more successful than Tillich’s because Randall accepts that symbols are completely subjective and that symbolic language is non-cognitive.

Randall views symbols as completely subjective in our mind and thus non-cognitive. Tillich is stuck with the perhaps impossible difficulty of explaining how he could possibly know that symbolic language has the spiritual power he thinks it does. Arguably by accepting that symbols are completely subjective and don’t have some mysterious power extending beyond our subjective minds, Randall’s theory is more successful while still retaining the strengths of Tillich’s, that it accurately captures most religious meaning in the lives and experiences of Christians.

Randall makes an analogy between the power of music, art and poetry to affect us, arguing that religious language functions similarly.

For Randall, symbols should not be understood as symbolising some external thing, they should be understood by what they do; by their “function”. Randall argues that symbols do four things:

1. Arouse emotions and motivate action
2. Stimulate cooperative action, bind community together
3. Communicate aspects of experience that cannot be expressed with literal language.
4. Evoke, foster and clarify human experience of the divine.

Weakness: non-cognitivism is non-traditional. However, Randall is then left with the issue that non-cognitive religious language cannot express factual objective true statements. Traditional theologians would not accept that fundamental starting point however, they would argue that religion actually is about much more than human experience, it is about reality and therefore religious language must be cognitive.

OCR-Philosophy     Edexcel-Philosophy     AQA-RS-Philosophy     Eduqas/WJEC-Philosophy