Aquinas described two types of
religious language - attribution and
proportion
Attribution - you can
work out the nature of
God through the
creation
God is the creator
and source of all
things so we can
understand God
through things in the
world
Eg) you can
examine the health
of a bull through it's
urine - it would be
better to check
health directly from
the bull but this is
not possibe
Proportion - this
refers to the
nature of what
something is
If you say a
car is 'good'
then it
measures up
to the idea of
what makes a
good car i.e
fast,
expensive,
handles well
In the case of God, if you
say God is 'good' then we
accept that this goodness
is beyond our own as God
is
omnipotent/omnibenevolent
Therefore, we can look at
the world to see what God is
like because we were
created in his image and
likeness - we just have to
think proportionally about
God as he is the creator
Ian Ramsey - Models and Qualifiers
Ramsey
suggested that
words and titles that
applied to God
function as
'models'
The 'model' tells us
something about God
but not everything
The model then needs to be qualified
If we say that "God is
good", the model is the
word goodness
However, as we are
dealing with God, the
model world requires
adaptation, thus the term
"qualifier"
We can then qualify the word by adding the term 'infinitely"
In this way,
we can
develop a
greater
insight into
the nature of
God's
goodness
Via Negativa
This is a form of theology
known as the 'Way of
Negation' of the 'Negative
Way'
God is not
an object
in the
universe
so it is not
possible to
describe
God
through
words
If we did use
words to describe
God we would
limit him
Therefore, it is better to
talk about God by
saying what God is not
As Basil the
Great advocates,
"Our intellect is
weak but our
tongue is even
weaker"
The
language
has also
been used
by people
who have
religious
experiences
to describe
the ineffable
nature of
their
experiences
Paul Tillich & Symbols
Paul Tillich was a
theologian who said
we could speak
meaningfully about
God through the
use of symbols
He made a
distinction
between
signs and
symbols;
signs are
information
giving
whereas
symbols are
powerful and
participate in
what they
symbolize
Tillich outlines four main
functions that symbols perform:
1) They point to something
beyond themselves 2) They
participate in that that to which
they point 3) Symbols open up
levels of reality that otherwise
are closed to us and 4) They
also open up the levels and
dimensions of the soul that
correspond to those levels of
reality
Example - the
cross for
Christians is a
hugely powerful
symbol
Metaphor
A metaphor is a figure of speech
in which a term or phrase is
applied to something to which it
is not literally applicable to eg,
"God is my rock"
Metaphors
can be used
to refer to God
without
describing
God
They can be helpful
ways of talking about
God which do not
actually describe
what God is
Gerry Hughes
maintains that
it is preferable
to use
metaphorical
language
about God as it
is less likely to
mislead
Myth
A myth
communicates a
particular world
view - the set of
values and
beliefs a person
or group have
about the world
For Christians
today, myths
communicate
the different
definitions of
God through
stories
The Genesis
story shows
that God is a
creator
They are
retellable
and easier to
communicate
than direct
language
about God
In the case of religious myths, the myth
may point to and reveal something about
God, in like manner to a symbol
Religious Art
Art provides a way in which
humans can understand difficult
concepts of God in visual ways -
the picture can make ideas such as
God's omniscience or
transcendence easier to
understand
There are many examples of religious
art in which people gain a better
understanding of God, for example
Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam"
God is shown as a wise and
powerful figure (age and
physique)
His right arm is outstretched to impact the spark of
life from his own finger into that of Adam (creator)
We also have the 16th
Century Russian Icon known
as "The All-seeing eye of
God"
God's eye (vision)
covers the entirety of the
icon much as it does the
entirety of the universe
(omniscience)
AO2:
Arguments for
and against the
meaningfulness
of religious
language
The verification Principle
Developed
by a group
of Logical
Positivists
known as
the Vienna
circle
Only accepted two
forms of language
as verifiable -
analytic and
synthetic
statements
Two forms of
verification principle
known as strong and
week verification
Strong verification claimed
statements are only meaningful
if we can experience or observe
them
Weak verification developed
because strong verification
discounted many statements
e.g history
Weak verification said
we can verify a
statement either in
principle or using
probability
A.J Ayer classified
the weak
verification principle
as direct and
indirect
A.J.Ayer: " A proposition
is...verifiable in the strong sense
of the term, if, and only if, its truth
could be conclusively
established...But it is verifiable in
the weak sense if it is possible for
experience to render it probable"
Language that talks about God therefore
is factually meaningless
Falsification Principle
Falsification means
to prove something
false
Difficult to verify
something 100%
easier to falsify (
All swans are
white / one black
swan)
A statement is meaningless if there is no possible
falsification criteria (nothing to count against it)
Anthony Flew said
religious language
dies by a thousand
qualifications
because Christians
qualify statements
instead of accepting
evidence against it
Religious people shift the goal posts
Flew's parable of the Gardener - God talk is
meaningless because of the constant qualification
even in light of the evidence presented
Response to the Falsification/Verification
Principle - R.M Hare and Bliks
R.M Hare came up with the challenge known as 'bliks'
A 'blik' is a view about the
world that may not be
based upon reason or fact
and that cannot be verified
or falsified
Although it can't be
verified or falsified ,
doesn't mean it isn't
meaningful
He uses the parable of the paranoid
student to make his point. The
student thinks that the dons of the
university are out to kill him
Basil Mitchell - Resistance Fighter
Mitchell disagreed with the theory of
'bliks' and suggested another way
He said religious language was based upon facts
but they were not easily verified or falsified
He uses the parable of the Resistance
fighter - religious people have a prior faith
commitment to God and therefore accept
statements about God without reservation
Mitchell's fighter accepts evidence
against his belief in the leader but also
grounds his opinion in facts he has
observed
John Hick
At the end of time (eschaton,
hence eschatological) all parts of
religious belief that require faith
will be made clear by God
He uses the
parable of the
Celestial City - Now
during the journey
these two travellers
are faced with the
same facts ad none
of these facts can
verify which of their
views about the
journey is right
If you find yourself in Heaven or
even Hell then the religious
language of Christianity will have
been verified
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Language Games
Ludwig Wittgenstein
originally supported Logical
Positivism but came to reject
verification
He said words have meaning
for people who are in a
particular group or society
Language has its own
set of rule like a game
If you are not in
the game you will
not understand the
language
Religious
language may
seem
meaningless
but actually it
is not because
it has meaning
to people in
the know
R.B. Braithwaite - language as moral assertion
Braithwaite suggested
that religious language
has meaning and can
be verified because it
results in a change in
behaviour
Braithwaite argued that
because religious statements
such as 'God is the almighty
father' result in action, they
have meaning
For example, a Christian
does not need to present
Jesus' death certificate for
a statement like "Jesus is
the resurrection and the
life" to have meaning