Religious language
Via negatiaa speaking about God using only terms to say what God is not
Via positiaa speaking about God using only terms to say what God is
Uniiocal languagea words that mean the same thing when used in diferent contexts (eg bath mat and door mat)
Equiiocal languagea words that mean diferent things when used in diferent contexts (eg dining table and
periodic table)
Analogya comparison made between one thing and another to help one understand something
Intro
Not only specialist vocabulary such as ‘Messiah’ and ‘dharma’. Any kind of language used in the context
of religious discussion behaviour and worship.
Used to evoke feelings of worship, to express personal feelings and to praise God.
Agnostcs think that God is something we can neither know nor speak about. None of the words in the
human vocabulary can communicate anything about God. Therefore there is no point in discussing God
or making statements about him, because we don’t know if what we’re saying is true or not.
Theists have always tried to communicate their understanding of God through language. Eg. 99 names
for Allah. Calling God ‘father’. They use language to convey supernatural ideas.
Can religious language communicate ideas efectvely even when these ideas go beyond our normal
experiences in daily life? Our language can be seen as limited, fnite and human, and inadequate for
talking about a divine and perfect being.
The apophati way (via neaatva) as a way of speakina aboout God
If people are using normal vocab to describe God they are using words that only apply to fnite,
imperfect things in this world. If people talk about God as a ‘father’ this makes us think of human
fathers. Puts into mind physical beings who have limitatons. Also fathers can be cruel and mean.
Therefore it is only possible to talk about God using negatve terms, talking about what he is not rather
than what he is. This is the via negatva. Otherwise if we try to describe him using human words we are
going to disrespect him.
Speak about god only using negatves eg ‘immortal’ ‘innacessible’ ‘tmeless’. If we say God is a ‘King’
then we give false impressions that he has a body or is male etc. if we say God is ‘good’ then we start
thinking about our own goodness. However our goodness is fawed and temporary whilst his is forever.
Via negatva supporters believe it is beter to accept the mysteries of God than to try and pin him down.
Pseudo-Dionysius- via negatva is the only way we can speak truthfully about God because he is beyond
all human understanding and imaginaton. He says that the soul’s search for God (he was a dualist) gets
held back by the demands of the body and the mind’s desire for understanding. It is counter-productve
to speak of God as though God can be perceived through senses.
o People who genuinely seek God should accept that god will remain a mystery untl aaer death.
Maimonides- the best way to show the nature of God is to explain what god is not. Therefore it doesn’t
limit God.
o ‘A guide for the perplexed’ he tries to explain the jewish scriptures to other jews.
o Analogy of the ship- every tme you say what a ship doesn’t have you learn more about the ship.
(critcize!)
Critcisms of via negavita
Via negatiaa speaking about God using only terms to say what God is not
Via positiaa speaking about God using only terms to say what God is
Uniiocal languagea words that mean the same thing when used in diferent contexts (eg bath mat and door mat)
Equiiocal languagea words that mean diferent things when used in diferent contexts (eg dining table and
periodic table)
Analogya comparison made between one thing and another to help one understand something
Intro
Not only specialist vocabulary such as ‘Messiah’ and ‘dharma’. Any kind of language used in the context
of religious discussion behaviour and worship.
Used to evoke feelings of worship, to express personal feelings and to praise God.
Agnostcs think that God is something we can neither know nor speak about. None of the words in the
human vocabulary can communicate anything about God. Therefore there is no point in discussing God
or making statements about him, because we don’t know if what we’re saying is true or not.
Theists have always tried to communicate their understanding of God through language. Eg. 99 names
for Allah. Calling God ‘father’. They use language to convey supernatural ideas.
Can religious language communicate ideas efectvely even when these ideas go beyond our normal
experiences in daily life? Our language can be seen as limited, fnite and human, and inadequate for
talking about a divine and perfect being.
The apophati way (via neaatva) as a way of speakina aboout God
If people are using normal vocab to describe God they are using words that only apply to fnite,
imperfect things in this world. If people talk about God as a ‘father’ this makes us think of human
fathers. Puts into mind physical beings who have limitatons. Also fathers can be cruel and mean.
Therefore it is only possible to talk about God using negatve terms, talking about what he is not rather
than what he is. This is the via negatva. Otherwise if we try to describe him using human words we are
going to disrespect him.
Speak about god only using negatves eg ‘immortal’ ‘innacessible’ ‘tmeless’. If we say God is a ‘King’
then we give false impressions that he has a body or is male etc. if we say God is ‘good’ then we start
thinking about our own goodness. However our goodness is fawed and temporary whilst his is forever.
Via negatva supporters believe it is beter to accept the mysteries of God than to try and pin him down.
Pseudo-Dionysius- via negatva is the only way we can speak truthfully about God because he is beyond
all human understanding and imaginaton. He says that the soul’s search for God (he was a dualist) gets
held back by the demands of the body and the mind’s desire for understanding. It is counter-productve
to speak of God as though God can be perceived through senses.
o People who genuinely seek God should accept that god will remain a mystery untl aaer death.
Maimonides- the best way to show the nature of God is to explain what god is not. Therefore it doesn’t
limit God.
o ‘A guide for the perplexed’ he tries to explain the jewish scriptures to other jews.
o Analogy of the ship- every tme you say what a ship doesn’t have you learn more about the ship.
(critcize!)
Critcisms of via negavita
