Summary Detailed Religious Language Notes (INCLUDES EVERYTHING!)

Philosophy Notes – Religious language

The Via positiva: The use of analogy

Univocal language: words which always have the same meaning, no
matter how they are used.
Equivocal language: words which have different meanings depending on
their context/use.
Cognitive statement: a statement subject to truth/falsity.
non-cognitive statement: a statement not subject to truth/falsity.
Analogy: a comparison between two or more things, usually to help us
understand something more complicated by likening it to something
similar.

The cataphatic way (the Via Positiva)

 A means of/attempt at speaking about God in a positive way – i.e.
making positive statements that can tell us what God ‘is’
 Rivals the ‘Apophatic way’/Via Negativa, which uses negative language
to speak about God – we can only say what God is not.
 Includes the use of analogy to speak about God in positive terms –
allowing statements like ‘God is loving’ to have some meaning, despite
limitations.

Language:
 Univocal language: if we attempt to speak about God univocally, we
risk making God sound human – anthropomorphising God.
 Analogical language: when we use words to describe God, we
recognise that they have a partial resemblance to their normal use.
Proposed as a ‘middle way’ – religious language should be neither
univocal nor equivocal.
 Equivocal language: if we attempt to speak about God equivocally, we
preserve God’s transcendence, but we cannot claim to know anything
about him as we don’t know what these words mean when applied to
God.

The use of Analogy – St Thomas Aquinas
 Religious language should not be used univocally not equivocally –
each has issues, and neither is useful for teaching us about God.
 Religious Language is best used analogically. We use human terms to
describe God, recognising that they are not meant univocally (as God is
not human), but not meant completely differently (equivocally), either.
 Words used to describe God must have a similar meaning to when they
are used to describe other things.

, Aquinas proposes two forms of analogy that one can use when
speaking about God: The Analogy of Attribution; The Analogy of Proper
Proportion
The Analogy of Attribution:
 The words we apply t human beings are related to the words we apply
to God because there is a CASUAL link between the two:
 Human qualities such as love, wisdom, power, faithfulness are
reflections of God’s qualities.
 We can see that ‘God is good’, because his goodness is reflected in
creation.
 Things in creation are ‘good’ because God himself is good.

The Analogy of Proportion:
 The extent to which a being can be said to have certain qualities
depends on the thing you are describing. The thing will possess the
quality to either a greater or lesser extent than another.
 Human beings are finite; God is infinite – any qualities each possesses
is proportional to their nature.
 Hick’s example of analogy of proportion: Faithfulness – a dog is faithful,
a human is faithful, God is faithful. Whether ours or a dog’s faithfulness
is greater, neither is greater than the faithfulness of God, because God
is infinitely faithful.

Aquinas on Analogy and speaking about God:
 We have no means of completely describing God as God ‘is’, due to
our limited capacity to understand his transcendent nature.
 However, we can come to know God partially by using that which is
familiar to us and applying it to God analogically.

Evaluating analogical language:
Strengths:
 Analogy allows for us to make statements about God that we can
understand, because we understand them at a human level. If we
remember that God holds any quality to a greater extent than any
earthly being, we can use language analogically.
 The analogy of proper proportion helps us to remember that God is
infinitely greater than any earthly being, and thus our analogical
language can still only get us so far.
Weaknesses:
 The things we compare God to by use of analogy remain totally
different to God. We can judge for certainty that something – e.g. a
cake – is good (if we agree on what ‘good’ means); but we have no way

, of judging for certain that God is good, or the full extent to which he is
good.
 As we are directly comparing God to earthly things, there is perhaps an
even greater risk of us anthropomorphising God by using analogy.



The Via Negativa/Apophatic way

 The argument that religious language is best approached by negation;
saying what God is ‘not’.
 Recognises the limits of trying to use human language to speak about
God-particularly if we try to apply it univocally (if we can only even be
equivocal).
 We can never hope to meaningfully say what God ‘is’; only what he is
‘not’.

Plotinus:
 Neo-Platonist philosopher.
 Used this method to describe the Form of the Good.
 Recognised that the Form of the Good was separate from our world, so
our language could never hope to describe what it was.
Pseudo-Dionysius
 Christian philosopher
 Speaks of God as being ‘beyond assertion’ – beyond our ability to
describe.
 Making positive statements about God (e.g. ‘God is good’) results in an
anthropomorphic idea of God. This disregards his transcendency and
divine nature.
 To say that ‘God is good’ limits his goodness as it puts a human idea of
goodness into our minds.
John Scotus Eriugena
 Irish monk
 Translated large parts of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius
 “God is beyond all meaning and intelligence…”
Moses Maimonides
 Jewish philosopher
 Emphasised the importance of the Via Negativa in his ‘Guid for the
perplexed’.
 Making positive statements about God is improper and disrespectful, as
it brings God down to a human level.
 We can make one positive statement God: he exists. All further
description must come via the Via Negativa.
St Thomas Aquinas