Religious Language Notes
Hume – when we encounter a form of communication that appears to make statements
about the way things are but has no grounding in experience, and it cannot be checked by
our experience, it is meaningless. This is supported by the idea that even for religious
believers God is totally different from humans, so how can we say anything meaningful
about Gods nature. On the other hand you also cannot deny the existence of something you
cannot describe. For empiricists there is little point in discussing anything about God
because it is like speaking nonsense.
The life of jesus shows several examples of apophatic speech. Apophatic theology is
negative theology. It stresses the idea that it is not possible to use human language to
describe or refer to God, because God is completelt different from humans and human
language is inadequate for the purpose. In fact, human language about God is harmful as it
could lead to the conclusion that God is less powerful. Ultimately Gods reality is beyond
human understanding and can only be adequately described by saying what God is not.
Psedudo- dionysis begins by denying thiose characteristics that are the furthest removed
from God such as hatred and drunkenness. Neither of these can be attributes of God. He
proceeds to discuss other attribytes and wualties of the divine. Some of these were
“goodness”, “truth” or creator. But pseudo dionysis rejects these as they can all be
compared to humans.
Pseudo-dionysius beleievd humans could only speak about God using apophatic language
because to talk about him in any other way would be inadewuate. He also says beings are
prone to form anthropocentric ideas of what God is like but this would mean they do not
have a clear view of God in reality. Only the soul can have any real understanding of God.
The cloud of unknowing is an apophatic expression declaring that God is hidden from
human reason and intellect by an inpenetrable cloud that is accessible to believers but only
by a spiritual and mystical love.
20th century Apophaticism
The major modern adherents of apophatic language and theology are seen in the Eastern
Orthodox Church. Lossky, like many other Eastern Orthodox Christians, believed that the use
of apophatic language was superior to that of western churches because it reveals a more
authentic expression of the Nature of God as totally different from human conceptions of
the divine. However whats the point of being religious when we know nothing about God?
The only way that humans can have any understanding of God is because of the special
revelation of the Trinity and especially through the incarnation of the Son (Jesus). We should
have blind faith. Blind faith is true love. However we wouldn’t have to have faith if we knew
about God the way we know about others.
Criticisms
However if we speak of God only negatively, then it is evry difficult even for religious
belieevrs to know what God is like. It is even more difficult for non believers. Futhuremore
, using negative terms give sthe impression that there is a little difference between a thiests
definition of God and the definition of nothingness.
Another criticism of Apophatic kanguage is that religious belivers assert that the bible is the
word of God. Almost all statements concerning God and Goda actions are positive – God is
loving, creative, forgiving etc How can all these positive characteristics be inappropriate for
religious belivers to use?
Religious language as analogy
Aquinas believed that God could not be described literally in human language. The word
Good cannot be use din the same way to describe God and to describe a child. There is
some similarity between the uses in the sens that there is a moral connotation in boith, but
there is a huge difference in the extent to which God is good by comparison with human
‘good’. This is why Aquinas advocated the via negative or apophatic language. He recognised
that it was not satisfactory to talk about God soley in negative terms, while it is possible to
know something of Gods nature our knowledge is only partial. For Aquinas all human talk
about God is analogical. For thiests univocal language is unacceptable, because it means
that God must be physical and limited just like human beings.
Aquinas says that although there are problems with knowing anything substantial about
God humans can use analogies with confidence to attribute certain characteristics to the
divine. Brian Davies uses the example of bread and a baker. If we taste a piece and say the
bread is good, it must mean that the baker is good at baking bread. When Aquinas calls God
the creator it means he can sya with confidence that God created everything that exists and
thqt God reveals himself through human nature. If things on the earth are good God must
be good. Is everything on the earth good?
Criticism
Analogy falls into the same trap as language as we are still using language to compare God
to something earthly. Hume argues that the strength of an analogy depends on the
similarity between the two objects compated.
Analogy can lead to anthropomorphism
Another criticism of Analogy is that it is not empirically verifiable. If ew say that X is like Y
and we have no experience of Y then we cannot show that the claim is either true or false.
Hume argues that analogical approaches were doomed to failure because it is impossible to
understand God by using human language.
Religious language as Symbolic
Paul Tillich – Religious statements do not give us literally true facts about God. They are
symbolic and are cognitive statements. They provide us with some degree of understanding
about God. Tillich believed that the problems associated with religious language stemmed
Hume – when we encounter a form of communication that appears to make statements
about the way things are but has no grounding in experience, and it cannot be checked by
our experience, it is meaningless. This is supported by the idea that even for religious
believers God is totally different from humans, so how can we say anything meaningful
about Gods nature. On the other hand you also cannot deny the existence of something you
cannot describe. For empiricists there is little point in discussing anything about God
because it is like speaking nonsense.
The life of jesus shows several examples of apophatic speech. Apophatic theology is
negative theology. It stresses the idea that it is not possible to use human language to
describe or refer to God, because God is completelt different from humans and human
language is inadequate for the purpose. In fact, human language about God is harmful as it
could lead to the conclusion that God is less powerful. Ultimately Gods reality is beyond
human understanding and can only be adequately described by saying what God is not.
Psedudo- dionysis begins by denying thiose characteristics that are the furthest removed
from God such as hatred and drunkenness. Neither of these can be attributes of God. He
proceeds to discuss other attribytes and wualties of the divine. Some of these were
“goodness”, “truth” or creator. But pseudo dionysis rejects these as they can all be
compared to humans.
Pseudo-dionysius beleievd humans could only speak about God using apophatic language
because to talk about him in any other way would be inadewuate. He also says beings are
prone to form anthropocentric ideas of what God is like but this would mean they do not
have a clear view of God in reality. Only the soul can have any real understanding of God.
The cloud of unknowing is an apophatic expression declaring that God is hidden from
human reason and intellect by an inpenetrable cloud that is accessible to believers but only
by a spiritual and mystical love.
20th century Apophaticism
The major modern adherents of apophatic language and theology are seen in the Eastern
Orthodox Church. Lossky, like many other Eastern Orthodox Christians, believed that the use
of apophatic language was superior to that of western churches because it reveals a more
authentic expression of the Nature of God as totally different from human conceptions of
the divine. However whats the point of being religious when we know nothing about God?
The only way that humans can have any understanding of God is because of the special
revelation of the Trinity and especially through the incarnation of the Son (Jesus). We should
have blind faith. Blind faith is true love. However we wouldn’t have to have faith if we knew
about God the way we know about others.
Criticisms
However if we speak of God only negatively, then it is evry difficult even for religious
belieevrs to know what God is like. It is even more difficult for non believers. Futhuremore
, using negative terms give sthe impression that there is a little difference between a thiests
definition of God and the definition of nothingness.
Another criticism of Apophatic kanguage is that religious belivers assert that the bible is the
word of God. Almost all statements concerning God and Goda actions are positive – God is
loving, creative, forgiving etc How can all these positive characteristics be inappropriate for
religious belivers to use?
Religious language as analogy
Aquinas believed that God could not be described literally in human language. The word
Good cannot be use din the same way to describe God and to describe a child. There is
some similarity between the uses in the sens that there is a moral connotation in boith, but
there is a huge difference in the extent to which God is good by comparison with human
‘good’. This is why Aquinas advocated the via negative or apophatic language. He recognised
that it was not satisfactory to talk about God soley in negative terms, while it is possible to
know something of Gods nature our knowledge is only partial. For Aquinas all human talk
about God is analogical. For thiests univocal language is unacceptable, because it means
that God must be physical and limited just like human beings.
Aquinas says that although there are problems with knowing anything substantial about
God humans can use analogies with confidence to attribute certain characteristics to the
divine. Brian Davies uses the example of bread and a baker. If we taste a piece and say the
bread is good, it must mean that the baker is good at baking bread. When Aquinas calls God
the creator it means he can sya with confidence that God created everything that exists and
thqt God reveals himself through human nature. If things on the earth are good God must
be good. Is everything on the earth good?
Criticism
Analogy falls into the same trap as language as we are still using language to compare God
to something earthly. Hume argues that the strength of an analogy depends on the
similarity between the two objects compated.
Analogy can lead to anthropomorphism
Another criticism of Analogy is that it is not empirically verifiable. If ew say that X is like Y
and we have no experience of Y then we cannot show that the claim is either true or false.
Hume argues that analogical approaches were doomed to failure because it is impossible to
understand God by using human language.
Religious language as Symbolic
Paul Tillich – Religious statements do not give us literally true facts about God. They are
symbolic and are cognitive statements. They provide us with some degree of understanding
about God. Tillich believed that the problems associated with religious language stemmed
