4.1 Analogy and Symbol  (4: Religious Language)

a) Analogy: via negativa, knowledge about God may be gained by what God is not like, univocal language and problems of anthropomorphism, equivocal language and problems of attribution, significance of proportional similarities and dissimilarities. 

With reference to the ideas of Aquinas. 

b) Symbol: types of symbol across a range of religious traditions, distinction between signs and symbols, symbols identifying and participating in a concept. Problems interpreting symbols and their limited application to a particular faith context. 

With reference to the ideas of P Tillich. 

SPANED QUESTIONS (Typically only 30mark Q)

“Evaluate and critically compare the via negativa with symbolic language as ways of expressing religious beliefs in words” 30 Marks

The via negativa and symbolic language are both ways of expressing religious belief. The via negativa, advocated by pseudo dionysius, states that positive attributes are misleading and God is beyond all human imagination. Tillich, on the other hand, stated that religious language is symbolic and communicates the most significant beliefs and values of human beings. However, some have suggested that it’s not clear what participating in a symbol means, and many Christians don’t believe that language is symbolic. Ultimately, however, symbolic language will be far more effective than the via negativa as it actually describes God rather than saying what he is not. 

The via negative states that God is beyond all human imagination, you can only talk about him in negative terms. He is transcendent, so you cannot say what God is. The key idea is that language cannot directly describe God, he is beyond human comprehension and totally ineffable. Pseudo Dionysius stated that god is ‘beyond assertion’ and ‘beyond denial’, meaning that whatever you say about God ultimately does not tell us about God. This does not mean that you cannot say things about God, but ultimately this language does not tell people about God, because our knowledge of goodness is that of a human being. This is because God’s goodness is greater than human concepts. We cannot know for certain what it is to have God’s attributes and qualities. This conclusion drawn from the via negativa has been rightly criticised by many. 

Hick points out that it is a contradiction to say that God is beyond human comprehension, yet to say that he can be found in the Bible. By knowing God through the Bible, this shows that the ‘only way to talk of God’ is not by using negative terms. If he can be known through storytelling and symbolic language which is presented in the Bible, then he therefore is known without the use of the via negativa. 

Although the via negativa states that you can clearly see what God is not e.g. does not have a body, is not evil, this theory is unreliable as methods such a symbolic language do, indeed, show us what God is. In all religious traditions, there are symbols which communicate beliefs about God to people, for example, in Christianity, there is the crucifix. Paul Tillich is a twentieth century philosopher and theologian who is famously associated with the use of symbols to describe God. He rightly argued that religious language is symbolic, religious symbols communicate the most significant beliefs and values of human beings. Symbols communicate something which is often difficult to put into words. For example, in every Roman Catholic church there is a lighted candle near the tabernacle which symbolises the presence of God within the tabernacle. This communicates the idea of the sacred presence of God. In this way, it is much more effective than the via negativa as it gives a tangible example of God’s presence and an insight into his nature, rather than merely stating what he is not.

However, there are many negatives of expressing religious beliefs through symbols. For example, in Tillich’s thinking, God is defined as the ground of being, the basis of all that exists and also the meaning behind all that exists. For this reason he argues that the ground of being should be the ultimate concern of people; material possessions and ideas cannot replace God. Therefore, the ground of being cannot be comprehended or known in a personal way, but is known through symbols. This can become a drawback as the meaning of a symbol can lose its meaning in society. Tillich noted that symbols can be reinterpreted and come to mean something different. For example the Hindu symbol of the swastika was adopted by the Nazi party. This therefore shows that symbols may not be the most effective way of communicating religious beliefs, as they can be adapted to mean different things for different people. With regard to religion, this conflict of meaning makes it difficult for believers to learn real truths.

However, contrastingly, it has been shown through history that that you cannot destroy a symbol. This may be seen clearly in the efforts of dictators to destroy religious and national symbols. These activities have rarely succeeded, and often the support for a symbol has become a sign of resistance. Therefore, this still, ultimately shows that although symbolic language may be criticised, it is still much more effective and explanatory than the via negativa.

Further, Tillich suggested that symbols participate in the thing which they point to. So, if the crucifix is symbolic of the significance of Jesus’ death, it somehow participates in the event. This means that it gives access to a deeper level of understanding of the event. This is much more effective than the via negativa which has been criticised by Brian Davies who stated that saying what something is not does not give an indication of what it is. In this way, participating in a symbol contrasts this as it shows the individual exactly the nature of what something is, as you become a participant of it.

To conclude, it is clear that the via negativa does not tell believers anything about God’s nature or religious belief. This kind of information is important for believers and thus makes the via negativa less credible. Although some religious believers do not rely upon symbols to express beliefs, the use of symbols is universally accepted and can be used effectively if an individual finds them beneficial. This contrasts the via negativa which gives no universal insight into ways of expressing religious beliefs in words. 

 Evaluate the claim meaningful theological discussion depends on the Cataphatic approach to language; it is impossible through the Apophatic way. 30 Marks

The Cataphatic approach to language, also known as the "positive way," is the use of language to positively describe the attributes and qualities of God. On the other hand, the Apophatic approach, also known as the "negative way," is the use of language to describe God through what God is not. The claim that meaningful theological discussion depends on the Cataphatic approach and is impossible through the Apophatic way, suggests that the use of positive language is necessary for understanding God, and that the use of negative language leads to confusion and a lack of understanding.

One of the strengths of the Cataphatic approach is that it allows for a clear and specific understanding of God's attributes and qualities. By using positive language to describe God, it becomes possible to have a clear and specific understanding of the nature of God. For example, the statement "God is all-powerful" gives a clear and specific understanding of one of God's attributes. 

Another strength of the Cataphatic approach is that it allows for a personal and relational understanding of God. By using positive language to describe God, it becomes possible to have a personal relationship with God and to understand God's actions in the world. For example, the statement "God is loving" allows for a personal and relational understanding of God's actions in the world. Theologian and philosopher Paul Tillich argues that "The positive statements about God in religious symbols are statements of the ultimate concern of human existence." This suggests that by understanding God through positive attributes and attributes, individuals can have a deeper sense of connection and understanding of their relationship with God. 

However, the claim that meaningful theological discussion depends on the Cataphatic approach and is impossible through the Apophatic way, also has several weaknesses. One of the main weaknesses is that the Cataphatic approach can lead to a limited understanding of God. By only describing God in positive terms, it is possible to limit the understanding of God to a finite set of attributes and qualities.

Another weakness is that the Cataphatic approach can lead to a misrepresentation of God. By describing God in human terms and attributes, it is possible to assign human limitations and flaws to God. The theologian and philosopher Dionysius the Areopagite argues that "God is beyond all things that can be said or thought." and that "God can only be known through negation and denial." This suggests that the Apophatic approach is necessary for understanding the transcendence and unknowability of God, and that a purely Cataphatic approach would lead to a limited and human-centered understanding of God. 

On the other hand, the Apophatic approach, also has some strengths. One of them is that it allows for a more complete understanding of God's transcendence and infinity. By describing God through what God is not, it becomes possible to understand that God is beyond human comprehension, and that human language is limited in its ability to fully capture the nature of God. For example, the statement "God is not bound by time" gives an understanding of God's transcendence and infinity. Theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas, for example, argues that "we can know what God is, in a way, by knowing what He is not." This allows for a more concrete understanding of God's nature and attributes, which in turn can lead to a more meaningful theological discussion. 

Another strength of the Apophatic approach is that it allows for a more humble and reverent understanding of God. By describing God through what God is not, it becomes possible to understand that human understanding of God is limited and that God is beyond human comprehension. This can lead to a more humble and reverent attitude towards God. Theologian and philosopher Meister Eckhart argues that "The more one knows God, the more one knows one's own ignorance." This suggests that the Apophatic approach can lead to a deeper understanding of one's own limitations and an increased sense of humility in relation to the divine.

In conclusion, the claim that meaningful theological discussion depends on the Cataphatic approach and is impossible through the Apophatic way, suggests that the use of positive language is necessary for understanding God and that the use of negative language leads to confusion and a lack of understanding. While the Cataphatic approach has its strengths such as allowing for a clear and specific understanding of God's attributes and qualities, and a personal and relational understanding of God, it also has several weaknesses such as leading to a limited understanding of God and a misrepresentation of God. On the other hand, the Apophatic approach has its strengths such as allowing for a more complete understanding of God's transcendence and infinity, and a more humble and reverent understanding of God. Both approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses therefore, a combination of both Cataphatic and Apophatic approaches is essential for a meaningful theological discussion.

References:

• "Summa Theologiae" by Thomas Aquinas

• "Theology of Culture" by Paul Tillich

• "The Divine Names" by Dionysius the Areopagite

• "The Complete Mystical Works" by Meister Eckhart

• "Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition" by Kevin Corrigan

• "The Role of Analogy in Aquinas's Theology" by John F. Wippel

• "Anthropomorphic Language and the Reality of God" by Thomas Aquinas