If God is beyond human comprehension, how can human language describe God: only by negation, by analogy, or through symbol?
Component 01 Issues in religious language (negative, analogical and symbolic): the apophatic via negativa, Aquinas's analogy of attribution and proportion, and Tillich's account of religious language as symbol.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to negative, analogical and symbolic religious language. Covers the apophatic via negativa, Aquinas's analogy of attribution and analogy of proportion as a middle way between univocal and equivocal language, and Tillich's symbols that participate in what they point to, with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
OCR Component 01 ends with "issues in religious language", split into a classical strand (negative, analogical and symbolic) and a twentieth-century strand (verification, falsification, language games). This dot point covers the classical strand. The shared starting problem is that God is transcendent, beyond ordinary experience, so human words may not fit. Three responses are studied: the via negativa (speak only by negation), Aquinas's analogy (a middle way between same and different senses), and Tillich's symbol. The exam rewards explaining each precisely and then evaluating which best preserves meaningful talk about God.
The answer
The via negativa (apophatic way)
Aquinas: the analogy of attribution
Aquinas: the analogy of proportion
Tillich: religious language as symbol
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. "Analogy is more useful than symbol for talking about God." Discuss. [40 marks]
- What the marker wants. An AO2 essay weighing Aquinas's analogy (attribution and proportion) against Tillich's participating symbol, judging which better says something true about a transcendent God without anthropomorphism. AO1 out of 25, AO2 out of 15.
Q2. Assess whether the via negativa leaves God-talk empty. [40 marks]
- Cue. Negation guards transcendence but may give no positive content. Weigh whether saying only what God is not is enough for worship and doctrine, against the positive routes of analogy and symbol, and judge.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
OCR H573/01 2018 (style)20 marksAssess the view that the via negativa is the best way to talk about God. (The full OCR tariff for this essay is 40 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.)Show worked answer →
A 40-mark Component 01 essay on the six-level scheme (AO1 out of 25, AO2 out of 15). Explaining the approaches earns AO1; the higher levels reward judging which best preserves meaningful God-talk.
Explain (AO1). The via negativa (apophatic way) says God so far exceeds human concepts that we can only say what God is not (not finite, not changing), avoiding the error of reducing God to a creature. Aquinas's analogy and Tillich's symbol are the rival positive routes.
Evaluate (AO2). Strengths of the via negativa: it guards God's transcendence and avoids anthropomorphism. Weaknesses: a string of negations gives little positive content and cannot ground worship or doctrine; we end knowing only what God is not. Analogy and symbol arguably say more without making God a creature.
Judge. A top answer decides whether negation alone is adequate or whether a positive method is needed, and defends the verdict.
OCR H573/01 2021 (style)20 marksCritically assess Aquinas's doctrine of analogy as an account of religious language. (The full OCR tariff for this essay is 40 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.)Show worked answer →
A levels-of-response essay testing AO1 understanding of analogy and AO2 evaluation of how successful it is.
Explain. Aquinas argues God-talk is neither univocal (the same sense as for creatures, which would reduce God) nor equivocal (a wholly different sense, which would empty it). It is analogical. By analogy of attribution, "God is good" because God is the source of creaturely goodness; by analogy of proportion, goodness belongs to God in proportion to God's infinite nature.
Evaluate. Strengths: a genuine middle way that says something true without anthropomorphism. Weaknesses: critics ask how we fix the proportion when God's nature is unknown, and whether analogy smuggles in knowledge we cannot have; Ayer would call it cognitively empty.
Judge. A high-level answer weighs whether analogy succeeds as a middle way, and reaches a justified conclusion.
Related dot points
- Component 01 Issues in religious language (twentieth-century perspectives): the verification principle (Ayer), the falsification debate (Flew, Hare and Mitchell) and Wittgenstein's language games.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to twentieth-century perspectives on religious language. Covers Ayer's verification principle, the falsification debate between Flew, Hare and Mitchell, and Wittgenstein's language games, weighing whether God-talk is meaningful, cognitive or non-cognitive, with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 The nature of God: the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity, the dilemma of foreknowledge and free will, and the contrast between God as timeless (Boethius, Aquinas) and everlasting (Swinburne).
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the nature of God. Covers omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity, the coherence problems each raises, the dilemma of foreknowledge and free will, and the contrast between a timeless God (Boethius, Aquinas) and an everlasting God (Swinburne), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 Arguments from reason: the ontological argument of Anselm (Proslogion II and III), with Descartes's and Malcolm's developments, together with the criticisms of Gaunilo (the perfect island) and Kant (existence is not a predicate).
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the ontological argument. Covers Anselm's two forms (Proslogion II and III), Descartes's supremely perfect being, Malcolm's necessary existence, and the criticisms of Gaunilo (the perfect island) and Kant (existence is not a predicate), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 03 Knowledge of God's existence: natural knowledge of God (reason, the world, the sensus divinitatis of Calvin), revealed knowledge (faith, grace, scripture, Christ), and Barth's rejection of natural theology.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 03 guide to knowledge of God's existence. Covers natural knowledge of God through reason and the world and Calvin's sensus divinitatis, revealed knowledge through faith, grace, scripture and Jesus Christ, and Barth's rejection of natural theology, with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 The problem of evil: the logical and evidential problems (Mackie, Rowe), the Augustinian theodicy (privation, the Fall, free will) and the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicy, with their strengths and weaknesses.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the problem of evil. Covers the logical problem (Mackie's inconsistent triad), the evidential problem (Rowe), the Augustinian theodicy (privation of good, the Fall, free will) and the Irenaean soul-making theodicy (Hick), with the strengths, weaknesses and AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- OCR A Level Religious Studies (H573) specification — OCR (2016)
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 13, on the names of God) — Project Gutenberg (1274)