Aquinas rejected equivocal language this is when the same word has an entirely different meaning in two situations. E.g. the nut on the tree, the nut on my bicycle. 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.
Another issue to consider is that if God is outside space and time then it becomes problematic to talk of God from our position within space and time. Our language is limited by our experience as we know it which means to talk about God who is outside space and time becomes meaningless. A stance to take could be describing what God is not e.g. ‘God does not have a body’. This is the approach that Jewish theologian Maimonides took to speak about God. Maimonides’s Theory, Via Negativa was influenced by the works of Aristotle, he believed in Aristotle’s conclusion that God was outside of space and time. Plato and Aristotle both argued that whatever was perfect could not be in space and time. Christian thinkers argue that God is perfect. Therefore God must be spaceless and timeless. Another issue is if God created space and time, God has to be very different from anything in the universe which is God made e.g. God does not have a body (since bodies occupy space and time passes whist bodies exist). In the Christian Old Testament God is sometimes shown metaphorically as having a body and Maimonides rejected all religious language that portrayed God in any anthromorphic sense. This objection to showing God in any sense like a human being is shared in Islam where there is refusal to show God in any art at all. In Maimonides book ‘The Guide to the Perplexed’ he came to the conclusion that human language is so rooted in temporality that it cannot be used to apply to God. This then lead to the belief that we should not talk about God in any positive ways as our language simply doesn’t have the capacity to be just but we can define what God is not and from this we can understand slightly what God is like.
As the language we use to talk about God can sometimes feel very limited the use of metaphors might be another approach to consider. Hebrew and Christian scriptures contain lots of metaphors to describe what God is like. E.g. ‘God as a father’. Metaphors are used to express theological truths from which there is no literal equivalent. If someone has an experience of God they might use metaphorical terms to describe it. The only problem with metaphorical language. Is that if all religious language was purely metaphorical it may be thought it lacks substance.
Braithwaite argues that religious language does not reveal or symbolise anything about God and Randall takes a similar stance and they both seem to conclude that religious statements are false and not meaningful.
Tillich adopted views both of a realist and anti-realist and believed God was separate from the finite world and was beyond existence. The gap between the finite and infinite world makes speaking of God symbolic. He felt that speaking of God was beyond our own language and had to be experienced. Tillich anti realist views are expressed when he calls God ‘that which concerns us ultimately’. This could then mean that money, shopping, sports could be God for us. There are many criticisms of this as it implies that God is a subjective. Although he seems to conclude that symbols express some things beyond human experience. A problem with this is if we cannot understand what is being symbolized we do not know what symbol to use.
Other Criticisms of symbols are from Univocalists who believe that all language used about God must be literal and used in the same way as ordinary language. Logical Positivists such as Ayer reject all religious language including symbolic instead believing verification allows statements of God to be verified. The ‘Verification principle’ is that in order for a statement to be meaningful it must be verified by sense experience. Verificationists believe that language about God should be literal and be verifiable by sense experience, statements such as ‘God exists’ and poetry are not verifiable by sense experience so are therefore deemed meaningful. This does not imply its false just not of any meaning. This can though lead to problems as the statement itself ‘any statement that is not capable of being verified by sense experience is meaningless’ is too meaningless as it cant be verified by sense experience.
C.S Lewis in his theory referred to three types of language ordinary, scientific and poetic. Religious language is mostly poetic and ordinary language. Poetic language describes both emotion and fact. Symbolic language therefore conveys facts about God. Poetry can add feeling to a scientific statement for example, ‘It was boiling hot’ rather than ‘it was hot’ this gives us more information and also we understand the experience better. Critics of poetic, symbolic language are that its only verifiable to a certain extent. As poetic language is subjective and therefore different people may disagree with some of the views.
In conclusion it is clear that a lot of care is needed with the language we use about God. Most world religions recognise the limits we have with any attempt to define what God is. Maimonides maybe right to some extent with the view we should only talk about God in negative terms as we don’t have the language and ability to talk about him justly. However I believe we should talk about Gods positive attributes as for us to talk about God in negative terms we must have some underlying thoughts of what he is. E.g. God is not evil’ we must therefore have some inclination that God is good and if only in a limited way we can understand this it is knowable to us in some measure and I believe this is better than simply saying what God is not. I do believe that Gods attributes are
above and beyond our understandings and is thus only partially comprehensible to us.
