• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The debate about religious language starts with the question of whether God can be spoken of meaningfully or not.

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐The debate about religious language starts with the question of whether God can be spoken of meaningfully or not. Some philosophers, such as the Logical Positivists, have concluded that no talk of religion is meaningful (either because religious statements cannot be verified or because religious belief can never be falsified and therefore asserts no claims.) However, other philosophers, such as Wittgenstein have concluded that religious language is meaningful. Having come to this conclusion, one meets several hypotheses claiming to present the most successful human understanding of an ineffable God. Analogy is one such theory. Aquinas put forward the theory of analogy because he did not feel that God could be adequately expressed in normal human language. This is because our language is either univocal (we use one word that has the same meaning in all situations, for example ?wise? means full of wisdom ? this is the only meaning of the word) or equivocal ( some of our language has more than one meaning. ?Bat? could refer to a small animal or a piece of sports equipment.) Aquinas suggested that univocal language was not appropriate to use about God because God is unlike any human concept ? if we used ?good? univocally about Helen and God we would be suggesting that Helen?s goodness was the same as God?s! ...read more.


This is the analogy of attribution. Secondly, Aquinas proposes the analogy of proportion. This states that everything has qualities in proportion to their nature. To say that I am good at the piano is in proportion to the fact that I practise for two hours a day. Mozart was also good at piano playing but this does not imply that we both play to the same standard! ?Good? is used in proportion to the fact that he is a professional. We can also explain this in terms of purpose. Everything has a purpose, and the potentiality to fulfil it. God has no potentiality, only actuality ? so God?s goodness is in proportion to what it means to be God, as my goodness is in proportion to what it means to be me, and Mozart?s is in proportion to what it means to be Mozart. Since God has no potentiality though, whilst I could be ?more good? God cannot: whatever it means to be God, He fulfils it completely. Aquinas? concept of God as wholly simple. So Aquinas concludes that God?s attributes are proportional to what it means to be God and that he perfectly fulfils this role. His attributes are not magnified versions of human concepts. ...read more.


We can see then that perhaps theories of God?s nature that are perhaps weak when used alone are in fact much stronger when used together. Symbol helps us reach a truly human understanding of God by using human terms symbolically to glimpse the nature of the transcendent and ineffable. These human terms must be qualified however and it is here that analogy can be useful ? the analogy of attribution would inform us that God?s care is not just a magnified version of my father?s care and the analogy of proportion would help us to understand that God?s care is proportionate to what it means to be God (and that God fulfils whatever that may be perfectly). In this way, we have countered Scotus? claim. At the final turn we might also consider that, since God is ineffable, we can never truly describe Him: this is part of the human understanding of God and so, whatever we find out with symbol and analogy, we must also qualify with the knowledge that God is not exactly so. This is the Via Negativa. In the end , we can see that analogy, which is a good foundation, but a little vague, can be used successfully to express a human understanding of God, but that this is best achieved in combination with other theories of religious language such as symbol and the Via Negativa. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. The Goodness of God

    In the ancient times and Jews today this is seen as an example of God's goodness because it means rest from hard work once a week. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8) This is good as it is an example of God being morally good in instructing humans to do what is best for them.

  2. `I know God exists, because I have an idea of perfection Discuss whether knowledge ...

    Also, the potential to gain knowledge only via sense experience appears far-fetched, due to it being virtually impossible to define a 'simple idea'. There is a lack of clarity surrounding when an idea can actually be classified as a simple one.

  1. Examine the contributions that two of the following may make to a study of ...

    They myth could also be a device that lets us talk about anything that is beyond language itself. Symbols become associated with the thing that they represent for example the US Flag is associated with passionate feelings, where as signs are different to symbols as signs are arbitrary representations of something like a stop sign mean stop.

  2. Discuss critically the use of symbol as a means of expressing ideas about God

    These are used in completely unrelated ways and if the language about God was used like this then there would be no connection between the language we use in the world and the language used about God and then the language about God would be meaningless.

  1. Philosophers have proved conclusively that religious language is meaningful. Discuss

    Logical positivists argued that it was pointless to talk about God as such propositions couldn?t be verified using senses or a scientific experiment. It wasn?t possible to know the conditions under which such propositions could be proved true or false and therefore the talk of such things must be meaningless.

  2. Discuss the study of Religious Language

    Ward argued that God?s existence could be verified in principle since ?if I were God I would be able to check the truth of my own existence?. They argued that as god could be verified in principle, religious language is meaningful.

  1. Evaluate the claim that analogy can successfully be used to express the human understanding ...

    Analogy is then split up into two different types by Aquinas, the first being analogy of attribution when there is a casual relationship in what is being described, for example when we speak of god as living it means that god is the cause of life.

  2. How Can the Religious View Be Defended As a Way of Seeing the World?

    Therefore unless we actually see a universe coming into existence and experience that event, then we can?t reasonably claim that we know whether our own universe has actually been made or not. Hence in Hume?s view the religious view cannot be defended as a way of seeing the world because

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work