More Notes on God-Language

(Originally written March 16, 2007 in Book 13)

Some Attempts at Building an Adequate Religious Language

Negative Language of God

The classic example of Negative theology in the West is Plotinus.

Plotinus felt that the One was so far beyond sensibility and intellectual awareness that it could never be spoken of or written about.

Negative religious assertions avoid verbal idolatry.

Finite concepts cannot be applied to an infinite Being.

But, the problem with Negative language is that it presupposes some positive understanding.

Univocal Language of God

John Duns Scotus believed that language used to describe finite creatures are wholly different then that describing the infinite.

He maintained that unless there is univocity in concepts of God there can be no certain knowledge of God.

Analogous Language about God

Thomas Aquinas pointed out the problem with univocal language. He showed that a created concept cannot be expressed univocally about an uncreated Being.

Aquinas advocated analogous language about God to avoid total skepticism and complete dogmatics.

If language is univocal, having a totally different meaning then we have no true knowledge of God.

He held that finite concepts are adequate in describing God if their finitude can be removed, that is to say if we can remove the limitations of concepts (like goodness, justice, etc.). Then we can apply them to God.

Model Language about God

Analogy of intrinsic attribution has not been widely accepted outside of Thomistic circles.

Frederick Ferré offered six objections to analogous language
1. A wholly extrinsic analogy says nothing about the intrinsic properties of God
2. If there is an extrinsic causal relation between God and the world, why are not all qualities drawn from the world applicable to God?
3. When words are disengaged from their finite mode of signification and applied to God they become meaningless.
4. Analogy is based on the challengeable assumption that the causal relation assumption that the causal relation between God and the world provides a basis for their similarity.
5. Even if analogy could be based on some Platonic ontological similarity between cause and effect, properties dawn from finite creatures could not be attributed to an infinite creature in a univocal sense and if they were attributed in a non-univocal sense then it is an equivocation of the word "cause".
6. If the ontology of similarity is not univocally expressed, it is an infinite regress of equivocations. If it is univocal then there is no need of analogy.

Ian T. Ramsey claims God is revealed via disclosure models.

"Disclosure models are the means by which the inverse reveals itself to men" (227).

Disclosure models point to mystery and allow one to speak about God, even if one cannot describe him.

While disclosure models are not ontologically they help to build 'family resemblances'.

In the disclosure model approach, God-language is the result of family resemblances built out of disclosure models integrated into the term, "God".

Autonomous Language about God

This movement denies that religious language needs to be judged by scientific or any other type of language.

In using Wittgenstein concepts they hold that one who is not religious cannot pass judgment on the meaningfulness of the religious language game.

D.Z. Phillips argued that the believer is under no obligation to the unbeliever to account for his beliefs, but the believer cannot impeach the non-believer's non belief on rational grounds.

Under Phillips' context religious language is justified internally, not externally.

Many believers and nonbelievers are unsatisfied with using Wittgenstein's concepts because it makes religious language completely isolated and some argue completely non-cognitive.

The basic problem of religious language is how one can speak meaningfully about God (infinite) by using finite concepts.

Mystics use the "via negative" - no positive affirmations about God are possible.

Scouts and others argue that if there are no positive assertions about God we are left with utter skepticism.

Thomas's argue that finite concepts have only an analogous meaning to the infinite.

11: Negative Religious Language

Negation has been used in philosophical though since Plato

Plato: Determination and Non-Being

The Parmenidean Problem

Parmenides was the first monist.

He held that there can be only One Being in the Universe because if there is more than One being they must differ by something (being) or nothing (non-being). They cannot differ by non-being because they wouldn't differ. They cannot differ by being because that is the only respect that they are similar. Thus, there is only one Being.

Plato's answer to the Parmenidean Problem

Plato held that things differ from each other by negation. A horse is not a chair.

There are two problems with Plato's negation:
1. One must have a positive understanding of what a chair is if a horse is not a chair.
2. All possibilities of a things characteristics must be negated before that this is truly known.

But, Plato, by placing all differences through negation only left differences in being as not happening. Thus everything that has being is identical and Monism necessarily follows.

Plotinus - Negation by Intuition of the Beyond-Being

Plotinus held that being had degrees and kinds, unlike Parmenides' assumption that being was pure and simple.

A brief sketch of the Plotinus' Solution

"The way things differ is by the degree of unity they have. The more unity something has, the higher degree of being it possess".

All Being begins with absolute unity, which is God.