Religious language – negativa, analogical, or symbolic
Apophatic way (via negativa)
Speaking about God in negative terms, emphasising the difference between God
and humanity e.g., God is not human
Any descriptions that give God positive attributes are misleading e.g., even
saying ‘God is love’ makes people think of human love which has many limitations
God is beyond our understanding so making negative statements are the only
facts we know
Pseudo-Dionysius
Via negativa is the only way to speak truthfully about God because he is beyond
our understanding and imagination
We need to accept that God will remain a mystery
However, God gave us free will to ask questions and so we have reason beyond
animals which makes us unique
Moses Maimonides – argues the best way to convey accurate understanding of
the nature of God is to explain what God is not. People can move closer to God
without limiting God in their limited human thoughts
Buddhist texts also use via negativa to convey central beliefs, nature of nirvana
and nature of Buddha which are difficult concepts to describe. Despite not believing
in God, they use via negativa to convey the essence of ultimate reality which cannot
be describes except is the negation of what we know from the physical world
Miamonides uses a ship example to illustrate via negative language e.g., ‘not a
sphere’
Davies: only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it is, and if
one can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.
He argues that imagine if there is something in my room and I reject every
suggestion you make about what it is, you will get no idea about what it really is.
Unreasonable to think that someone would arrive at the notion of a ship and
could equally think of a coffin
So, unlikely to lead people in the right direction
Maimonides assumes someone can gain understanding via elimination; however,
we need to know beforehand what the different possibilities are, so we know what is
left when alternatives have been crossed off.
Cataphatic way (via positiva) - analogy
Freud – analogies decide nothing, but they can make one feel more at home
Aquinas:
We cannot say anything positive that is literally true about God because ordinary
human language automatically limits God, placing his attributes within our experiences
and understanding
Via eminentiae (the way of eminence) - to show that what we say and how of
God is limited so we should realise that God’s love is ‘eminent’ whilst human love is
partial and flawed.
The only way to make positive claims about God is by recognising they are
analogical, rather than literal
Univocal = uses words in the same way exactly e.g., bath mat and door mat
Equivocal = the same word used but in different ways e.g, computer mouse but
field mouse
Analogy is the middle ground between the two: analogical language is the same
term used in similar or related ways.
Analogy = comparison between similar things
Davies: ‘the bread is good, the baker is good’
Two types of analogy
Apophatic way (via negativa)
Speaking about God in negative terms, emphasising the difference between God
and humanity e.g., God is not human
Any descriptions that give God positive attributes are misleading e.g., even
saying ‘God is love’ makes people think of human love which has many limitations
God is beyond our understanding so making negative statements are the only
facts we know
Pseudo-Dionysius
Via negativa is the only way to speak truthfully about God because he is beyond
our understanding and imagination
We need to accept that God will remain a mystery
However, God gave us free will to ask questions and so we have reason beyond
animals which makes us unique
Moses Maimonides – argues the best way to convey accurate understanding of
the nature of God is to explain what God is not. People can move closer to God
without limiting God in their limited human thoughts
Buddhist texts also use via negativa to convey central beliefs, nature of nirvana
and nature of Buddha which are difficult concepts to describe. Despite not believing
in God, they use via negativa to convey the essence of ultimate reality which cannot
be describes except is the negation of what we know from the physical world
Miamonides uses a ship example to illustrate via negative language e.g., ‘not a
sphere’
Davies: only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it is, and if
one can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.
He argues that imagine if there is something in my room and I reject every
suggestion you make about what it is, you will get no idea about what it really is.
Unreasonable to think that someone would arrive at the notion of a ship and
could equally think of a coffin
So, unlikely to lead people in the right direction
Maimonides assumes someone can gain understanding via elimination; however,
we need to know beforehand what the different possibilities are, so we know what is
left when alternatives have been crossed off.
Cataphatic way (via positiva) - analogy
Freud – analogies decide nothing, but they can make one feel more at home
Aquinas:
We cannot say anything positive that is literally true about God because ordinary
human language automatically limits God, placing his attributes within our experiences
and understanding
Via eminentiae (the way of eminence) - to show that what we say and how of
God is limited so we should realise that God’s love is ‘eminent’ whilst human love is
partial and flawed.
The only way to make positive claims about God is by recognising they are
analogical, rather than literal
Univocal = uses words in the same way exactly e.g., bath mat and door mat
Equivocal = the same word used but in different ways e.g, computer mouse but
field mouse
Analogy is the middle ground between the two: analogical language is the same
term used in similar or related ways.
Analogy = comparison between similar things
Davies: ‘the bread is good, the baker is good’
Two types of analogy
