Religious language is concerned with asking ‘what can be said about God’. It is not concerned with whether or not God exists, or what God is like or why there is evil in the world. There are multiple ways in which people talk about God and a large amount of different language is used to do so. The problem for religious believers is the way to use language and word it in a way that is meaningful towards God where as for the majority of people the problem with ‘God-Talk’ is whether it actually means anything.
A philosopher who believes that religious language is meaningful is Pseudo-Dionysius, who put forward the via-negativa. The via-negativa is the belief that as God is transcendent, words limit of understanding of him since he is so vastly different to what we know and understand; meaning that human terms limits him. Due to this Pseudo-Dionysius suggests that we should instead state what God isn’t rather than what he is in order to become closer to understanding God. An example of this, put forward by Moses Maimonides is a ship; he states that by describing what a ship isn’t we get closer to understanding what a ship is. While Pseudo-Dionysius does agree that religious language is
…show more content…
meaningful, similarly to Moses Maimonides, he only believes it is meaningful when being used negatively. Even though the via-negativa focuses on a transcendent God and avoids being to anthromorphic (human based) as well as not limiting God, it puts forwards many questions. Such as ‘How can we describe what God isn’t if we have no idea of what he is?’ and ‘How can we make judgements of something we haven’t experienced?’. Maimonides example of the ship is also widely criticised when looking at the via-negativa as it uses an inanimate object which is used and known in human understanding to compare to a God who is out of our knowledge and understanding. Aquinas, who criticised the via-negativa in his use of analogy, is one of the many philosopher’s and theologians who states that it is possible to speak meaningfully about God. An analogy is a way of explaining the meaning of something that is usually difficult to understand by comparing it with something which is within our understanding/knowledge. When talking about God, Aquinas rejected both equivocal (words that mean different things in different contexts) and univocal (words that mean the same in all situations in which they are used) language and believed there was a ‘middle way’ when speaking of God meaningfully. This ‘middle way’ that Aquinas spoke of was his analogies. Aquinas had two main analogies, the first of which was the analogy of attribution. In this analogy Aquinas uses his belief of God being the source of everything in the universe and that God is in fact universally perfect as the base and starting point. He then builds on this and continues by stating that all beings imitate God in some way according to their mode of existence. Aquinas supports this point By saying “Thus, therefore, God is called wise not only insofar as He produces wisdom, but also because, insofar as we are wise, we imitate to some extent the power by which He makes us wise. On the other hand, God is not called a stone, even though He has made stones, because in the name stone there is understood a determinate mode of being according to which a stone is distinguished from God. But the stone imitates God as its cause in being and goodness”. Aquinas continues to back up this point by using the example of a bull, he states that the health of a bull can be determined by examining its urine and if the urine is healthy so is the bull. However the health of a bull is within itself and the urine produced is only a reflection of this. Similarly God is the source of qualities in the universe and possesses qualities first and in the most perfect way. This means that these qualities apply to other things, such as us who are born in the image of God, secondarily and analogically. It is possible to say we have qualities such as wisdom and goodness which were attributed to us analogically, whilst God has them perfectly. The second of Aquinas’ analogies is the analogy of proportion.
The basic idea of this analogy is that we were created in God’s image and likeness so possess qualities like those of God but as we are inferior to God we experience these qualities in lesser proportion to God. John Hicks example of the term ‘faithful’ helps to explain this analogy, as he states that men, woman and dogs can be faithful but the faithfulness of a man and woman is clearly very different to that of a dog. However there is a recognisable similarity between the two, otherwise we would not think of a dog as faithful. In the case of the analogy between the dog and human beings, true faithfulness is something we know within ourselves and a dim and imperfect likeness of this is in the dog and is known by
analogy. Although the analogies are one way of being able to speak about God they are criticised due to not telling us anything new about God as they are based on things that are already in existence. Aquinas is also criticised for basing his work upon assumptions that come from his own religious belief and only focusing on some qualities that good possesses such as the good qualities but ignoring those such as evil which the worlds comprises. Paul Tillich was a theologian and believed that it is possible to speak about metaphysical concepts in a meaningful way and came up with the theory that religious language has a profound effect on humans as it is symbolic in nature. Paul Tillich makes a distinction between signs and symbols by saying that signs do not participate in what they symbolise, whereas symbols actually take part in the power and meaning of what they symbolise. For example when looking at a cross which is the symbol for Christianity, it not only stands as a marker for the religion but it also makes the strong and powerful statement of reminding Christians of the sacrifice they believe Jesus to have made on the cross for them as well as reminding them of their beliefs about God. This is an example of a symbol communication much more powerfully with us and therefore supporting Tillich’s belief that religious language operates as a symbol. To support his ideas Tillich outlined four main functions that symbols perform: 1. They point to something beyond themselves 2. They participate in that to which they point to 3. Symbols open up the levels of reality that is otherwise closed to us 4. They also open up to levels and dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality Tillich argued that symbolic language can have a deep and profound effect upon us, like music or art, which we can only explain in a limited way, and may only be understood by someone who has experienced the same thing. He maintained that the vision of God which he called ‘being-itself’ could only be pointed towards by religious language which is a symbolic way of leading us towards this ultimate reality. Tillich believed that being-itself is that upon which everything else depends for its being and that we come to knowledge of this through symbols which direct us to it. Tillich’s work was criticised by William Alston who stated that religious statements and statements about God should have existinal and real significance which he believes Tillich removes. A J Ayer put forward the verification principle to prove that religious language is in fact not meaningful. Ayer states that “a statement which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all, it is simply devoid of any meaning” and that to verify a statement we must check its truth against a body of facts and/or evidence. The verification principle demands that we must be able to check a statements claims against things that exist for it to have meaning. For example if we say “it is raining” it is easy to check or verify this statement where as if we were to say “there is life after death” this is less easy to verify. Verificationists such as Ayer state that there are two types of statements that are meaningful: analytic statements (statements that contain all the information within the statement that we need to verify it) and synthetic statements (statements that can be confirmed through the use of senses), because of this Verificationists believe that metaphysical statements (about things such as God) are completely meaningless as we have no way of verifying whether they are meaningful statements or not. A J Ayer enforces this by saying “The term ‘God' is a metaphysical term. And if ‘God' is a metaphysical term, then it cannot even be probable that God exists. For to say that ‘God exists' is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.' Ayer denies God’s existence, but also denies the possibility of God’s existence as a whole as he believes there is no way of empirically verifying his existence. Anthony Flew produced a similar theory to the verification principle called the fasciation principle which is the other side of the verification argument. Flew argued that when we say something such as badgers are black and white we are also denying the opposite (badgers are not not black and white). He believed that when you assert something you are also asserting the possibility that there are facts and evidence, therefore there has to be some sense experience that would count against your claim. Flew would put this as “‘If there is nothing which a putative assertion denies then there is nothing which it asserts either.” For flew, a statement can only be meaningful if we accept that there is evidence that may falsify it. The philosopher RM Hare responded to the falsification principle, as if we take verification and falsification to their logical conclusions we find ourselves unable to say almost anything about God and metaphysical matters. Hare came up with a response called the theory of ‘bliks’ and used a parable to illustrate his point: ‘A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, "You see, he doesn't really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?" But the lunatic replies "Yes, but that was only his diabolical cunning; he's really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you." However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is the same.” Therefore a ‘blik’ is a particular view about the world that is not necessarily based upon reason or fact and it cannot be verified or falsified; it just is and we don’t need to explain why. John Hick criticised Hares theory by arguing that religious beliefs/’bliks’ are based upon reason such as experience or scriptures. He also states that there is an inconsistency in Hares work as he states that there is a distinction between sane and insane bliks however he also claims that bliks are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Hick states we cannot call bliks sane or insane if we cannot prove or disprove religious bliks. I believe that philosophers have probed that religious language is meaningful as Wittgenstein’s’ Tractatus ‘whereof we do not know, thereof we cannot speak’ rejects that of verification and falsification. However I do not believe that religious language has been proved conclusively as there is evidence against it and religious language is not meaningful for everyone such as non-believers.
Figurative language is when you use words or a phrase that do not have a regular, everyday literal meaning and is used by almost all authors in their writings. Authors use figurative language to make their works more interesting and more dramatic. Examples of figurative language include metaphors, similes, personification and hyperbole. Helena Maria Viramontes uses figurative language all throughout her novel Under the Feet of Jesus. In the opening paragraphs of the novel Viramontes uses imagery to set the scene for her readers, she really makes us feel as if we are riding along in the station wagon with Estrella and her 6 other family members. In this scene she describes to her readers reflects on the hardships that this family, and people
When ancient people look to understand religion, it is easier for them to relate to a higher power, also known as a god. Throughout the world and through time, there have been hundreds of different religions that have been established, and in the writings by people of these various groups there are often stories about conversation with the gods. This helps other people in understanding and conforming to the same beliefs. Two of such examples of this style of analyzing what gods are, are found in St. Augustine’s Confessions and The Bhagavad Gita.
Lastly, relevance doesn't change the message; it reshapes its presentation. Let us not become like the Pharisees who were willing to crucify anyone who challenged their traditions and their stylistic inflexibility, confining people to a dead and dull religion. “God: The Villanelle” by Marvin Klotz is a perfect example of someone who sees religion confined to rules, rituals, and regulations. It is evident that Klotz views religion as a source of much human misery:
Christ resembles Dionysus in many ways. Is it possible that Christ is simply an extension of the Dionysian myth? Though the concepts of wine and faith unite the two, the idea of revenge compared to self-sacrifice separates the two deities. Dionysus fits the Greek understanding of vengeful and selfish God that bear more anthropomorphic traits than Godly traits. Christ, however, transcends human desires for revenge and acts in self-sacrifice. This is the key separation between them.
An example of this would be when he compared the man who shot Ronald Reagan, who was John W. Hinckley Jr. with his inner self. The inner self over took Hinckley Jr. and he could not even control himself against the monster, the “anti-self” (Morrow par.8). Another example that is used to express the meaning of the work is when both the bad and the good inner self are explained, by saying, “Daydreams of possibility enlarge the mind. They are also haunting.” (Morrow par. 9). This comparison basically is saying that, the imaginary person inside of us changes just like we do, varying from good daydreams and good happy thoughts to awful nightmares and terrible thoughts as well. The comparison of humans to their inner selves is a common comparison that is exemplified multiple times in order to uncover the author’s
This thesis is shown by John Hick in his article Evil and Soul-Making. As Hick explains, humans already exist in God’s image but have “not yet been formed into the finite likeness of God . . . Man is in the process of becoming the perfected being whom God is seeking to create. However, this is not taking place – it is important to add – by a natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom . . . this involves an accumulation of evil as well as good” (Hick 1-2). In other words, humanity is slowly progressing toward a world in which evil does not exist, as implied by the term “finite likeness of God,” but in order to reach that state, we must first deal with acts of evil, in order to learn what good truly is. On a personal level, this is known as soul-builder
Language always conveys a message. Language can convey a message that is full of manipulation. In Robin Lakoff’s essay, “Everybody’s a Politician”, she discusses how manipulation is used in day to day conversations, even if one is not intentionally trying to manipulate. Language can be used to dominate others. In the essay, “the Language of Oppression” by Haig A. Bosmajian, he explains the power of using names to define others. Language can change the way a person thinks. In the same essay, “the Language of Oppression” by Haig A. Bosmajian, he also discusses the way someone thinks can be changed by language. Lastly, language has the power to degrade an individual. In another essay, by Robin Lakoff, “You Are What You Say”, she explains how
"So god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created
“God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance” (93).
In my own writing, I find that my beliefs on humanity and God bleed into my words. My symbolism is not always intentional. I have started to believe that just by writing, I will complete the task of putting my views into the world. I believe that man is evil, and that is reflected in each character I create and his imperfection. Man can also be redeemed, visible in the hero’s fall from grace and return in triumph. Finally, man will be judged for his actions, shown by the consequences in each action that cause the plot to unfold. Overall, my beliefs, as O’Connor and Sayers state, intertwine into my work unintentionally as I write it. I do not have to force my reader to read Christian paradigm in order to get a Christian viewpoint into my work.
The word religion literally means connect again, but it also can have many meanings depending on a persons’ spiritual connection or moral outlook that governs their belief system. In the opinion of many, religion is the connection of a higher power for some, a social class for others, and a way to connection with a group who share the same views of a higher being.
...rom the excellent theories of both Otto and Berger: humans create biblical interpretations… they even created the bible. If religion could speak, I believe it would mimic the Wizard of Oz by saying, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” when in truth, without the help of the man behind the curtain, there would simply be no religion at all.
of the Bible, Genesis, we are told we are 'made in the image of God'
In order to make sense of these inherently opposite features, we must seek a higher authority and focus on God’s beauty, mercy, love, and grace. Our God, who is the creator of the world, has a plan for us all and intends for us to seek out His will. When we look around us and see that God created and feeds the sparrow just as he created and feeds us, we can begin to understand God’s will and His purpose for us. The entire enormity of this world and what God created becomes clearer. God seeks a relationship with us. There are times when reading the Bible, a passage or verse may seem too confusing or unrelatable in our current situation, although a God who created nature and everything in it always reveals the truth in His time for His plan for
After the child encounters the dog they being to play with one another. The passage notes; “the dog became more enthusiastic with each moment of the interview, until with his gleeful caperings he threatened to overturn the child. Whereupon the child lifted his hand and struck the dog a blow upon the head.” (Crane) With this we see the first act against the dog. The dog does not turn violent or try to run away. Instead he summits and begs for forgiveness. He rolls onto his back and gives the child a look of prayer. The relationship roles here become clear the child can play god with this dog. Knowing how the dog reacts to this is showing how the dog’s character is to please his master. They play for a while longer, until the child loose interest in the dog’s antics. He began to head home, when he notices the dog is following him. He decides to get a stick and hit him with it. The dog still summits to this act and continues to tag along. When they finally reach ...