Toll Free 1800 572 9282 
mailus@wbcsmadeeasy.in
W.B.C.S. Examination Notes On – Nature Of Religious Language – Philosophy Notes.
The subject of religious language is derived from the question “Can we speak meaningfully about God?” this question has great significance. God is, by nature, an ineffable being outside spacio-temporal confines which limit us human beings. God’s ineffability and transcendent nature means it is difficult to construct a meaningful statement about God without impinging on His definition.Continue Reading W.B.C.S. Examination Notes On – Nature Of Religious Language – Philosophy Notes.
If it is not possible to make a meaningful statement about God then there is a danger that the God we think we know is a misrepresentation to the point where we no longer worship God Himself. There are some who believe that we cannot make meaningful statements about God at all. Followers of the Verification Principle such as A. J. Ayer, for example, would hold that whatever statement we make choose to make about God cannot be verified (meaning it cannot be objectively ascertained or checked) and is therefore meaningless. There are however several strong arguments against the verification principle including the criticism that the Verification Principe is, itself, unverifiable as there is nothing which it can be tested against.
For the purpose of this essay and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary tedium I will assume that it is meaningful to make statements about God. There are four main ways in which it is claimed one can speak meaningfully about God: Via Negativa, The way of Analogy, The way of Symbolism and The way of Metaphor.
The way of Analogy, which was devised by St Thomas Aquinas, claims to provide a way to construct meaningful statements about God and avoid misrepresenting Him. Aquinas holds that in order to talk meaningfully about God we must use our language analogically as opposed to univocally, which involves applying a single word in two propositions where the word means the same thing and reduces God through the finite and temporal implications of our language, and equivocally, which is to use the same word in different senses such as “bat in the cave” as opposed to “a cricket bat” which becomes nonsensical when talking in relation to God.
Speaking analogically, says Aquinas, offers the possibility of applying the same word to different things and in this way we can make meaningful statements about God. He breaks down analogical statements into two categories. The first is Attribution and the second is Proportion. Attributive statements are demonstrated by Aquinas in the statements: “The bull is healthy.” and “The bull’s urine is healthy.” (NB at this time in history it was believed that health could be assessed through the inspection of a urine sample). So by the preceding statements the bull is healthy because the urine is healthy. Aquinas holds that this logic can be applied to God. Using the nature of causality and an underlying fundamental connection that Aquinas believes exists between God and His creation (just as the health of the urine is attributed to the health of the bull). So, for example, we can know that God is good because He is the cause of goodness in the universe such as a cat’s or tree’s or human’s goodness. Proportional statements follow a similar logic.
All creatures possess a nature as God too possesses a nature. Therefore, what it means to be “a good cat” and “a good God” is different as they possess different natures. What it means to say “a cat is good” and “God is good” makes sense by proportion. We can say on the basis of a cat or human’s goodness that God is good as God must possess what is necessary for a person to be good. This does not mean that we can know in what God’s goodness consists. Similarly, in respect to the analogy of proportion, we can know that God is good in whatever manner is appropriate to His nature but we cannot know specifically what this manner is. Aquinas’ way of analogy does indeed find a way for us to talk about God without misrepresenting Him by attributing things in the world that we experience to God (such as the cats goodness). However one may pose the question: “can we know anything about God at all?” Analogy may tell us that God is good. However, since we cannot know what it means for God to be good does this then mean that “God being good” is meaningless? Furthermore, the way of analogy also rejects the literal meaning of words when speaking in relation to God. Richard Swinburne suggests that some words can be used univocally to describe God. For example, the word “good” can describe a person or God, God being good to a greater degree.
Some argue that Aquinas’ view is too associated with the medieval understanding of the universe. Sally McFague argues this and, although she agrees with Aquinas that there should be a middle way between univocal and equivocal language. McFague, however, argues that this should be the Way of Metaphor rather than the way of Analogy. McFague hold that religious language (“The Lord is my Shepherd” – Psalm 23 et al.) and, indeed, all of theology is essentially metaphorical. There is the criticism that the way of Metaphor conceals as much as it illuminates about God. McFague rebuts this by maintaining metaphorical language is necessarily inexact. True on one level and false on another but this does not mean it is invalid. The nature of language towards a being such as an ineffable God must be inexact. The metaphorical way of talking about God attempts to prove an updated response to one of the main criticism of the Way of Analogy (that we no longer subscribe to the view that there is an underlying fundamental connection between God and his creation, providing a basis for analogical language.). In a sense it does succeed but it still falls into the same traps as the way of Analogy in that we may wonder if we really learn anything about God through this use of language as the way of metaphor is so vague and it also rejects the literal meaning of words in relation to God.
Another way to speak about God is the way of symbolism. This was developed by Paul Tillich who said religious language “must begin with the most abstract and completely unsymbolic statement as possible, namely, that God is being-itself or The Absolute”. Tillich defines God as transcendent and completely beyond our ordinary experience with his one literal claim about God. After his one literal statement about God, however, Tillich holds that all further statements regarding God must be symbolic as nothing more can be literally said about Him without misrepresenting Him. The literal statement is necessary for symbolic language as there must be something for symbolic language to be symbolic about. However, the way of symbolism’s main weakness lies in this literal statement, namely, whether it can be literal. What does “the Absolute” or “being-itself” literally mean? It is not clear, so then is the foundation of symbolic language and, therefore, all subsequent symbolic statements that are derived from it making the way of symbolism extremely unstable.
Please subscribe here to get all future updates on this post/page/category/website
