Eduqas Alevel RS Philosophy 4C Analogy

what are the two types of language

univocal and equivocal

what is univocal language

Language which is used in the same way in different contexts: God is wise and John is wise. They are trying to convey meaning and knowledge of God.

Why it would be good to use univocal language for religious language

it is easy to understand Everyone, it gives us knowledge about what we are talking about know what wise means

what is univocal language an issue for religious language

putting God at the same level as humans, lowering God down to Johns level. We only know human wisdom not God wisdom so we are anthrophermorising God

What does anthropomorphic mean?

having human characteristics

what does univocal language lead to

misrepresentation of God - Cast him as human which he is not

what is equivocal language

words that mean different things when used in different contexts: one word with different reasons depending on the context. Bat in rounders or bat as in the animal.

why it would be good to use equivocal language religious language

God is separate and we are not bringing him down to human level. We know we are talking about God and not a God with human characteristics

why is equivocal language an issue for religious language

don't understand it as we have no example on earth, we have nothing to compare or measure it against

what does equivocal language lead to

misunderstanding due to the lack of comparison

what is analogy

take the known and compare the unknown to help knowledge and clarification

what did Thomas aquinas say about the use of analogy and religious language

Aquinas believed that there was a middle way between univocal and equivocal. The middle way was an analogy, he uses two types to explain his argument, the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proportion

what was aquinas' analogy of attribution

a casual link between caste and effect.

Aquinas believed it was possible to wok out the nature of God by examining his creation. Therefore the world was created by God for him, the link between the creation and the creator. Aquinas says that God is the source of all things in the universe and that God is universally perfect. He then goes on to argue that all being in the universe in some was imitate God according to their mode of existence

He uses the example of a bull to illustrate that we can tell the health of the bull through the examination of its urine. If the urine is healthy then we can assume that the bull itself is healthy. The same way that God is the source of qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly. All of the qualities that we have God has perfectly.

what is Aquinas' analogy of proportion

this refers to the nature of what something is. Aquinas uses the example of good applied to what a good car should be. If you said that someone is a good person, the word good is saying that the person has qualities that line up with what a good person is.

using this when talking about God good is used to indicate that God measures up to what it is for God to be good. God is described by Aquinas as perfectly good, using the word good to refer to the way in which something lives up to what it should be.

like saying a dog is faithful and then using the word faithful to describe a human, we know what both mean but also that the human faithfulness is much greater and of more value than the dogs faithfulness due to our complex minds and emotion. It works in hierarchy, God is more hierarchy so more faithful and we are simply limited by our human nature - God is not limited to the same level as us

What does Ian Ramsey say about analogy?

We need to qualify models with words such as 'infinitely' or 'eternally' when talking about God.

what does models mean

words we can understand because we have a reference point in our own human experience such as God is a father - we learn that God is a man

what are qualifiers

adjectives and adverbs which aim to show a difference between ourselves and God, elevating God to a higher level such as God is the almighty father, not the same as the human fathers

what is a disclosure

where something is made known, where previously it was hidden or unknown

How does Ian Ramsey use language and examples?

God is the almighty father.

Almighty being the qualifier that elevates the status of the model beyond our experience, making it closer to the God status.

Father is the model, we have the experience of what a father is and so it is the first ground of our understanding

- also love: human love is conditional and limited but by qualifying it we can make it unconditional and acknowledge that divine love surpasses human love

what does Ramsey aim to do

he aims to bridge the univocal and equivocal gap, you use the same word (univocal) but we are adding something too it, however we are not using it in a completely different way and we are not limiting God to our experience in the world

what is disclosure and commitment by Ramsey

Ramsey also introduced the idea of disclose situations, these are moments where religious language makes sense in a profound way such as an experience of awe or revelation. In these moments an individual may grasp religious truths beyond literal language.

what did Ramsey think about analogy

he argued that analogy with the careful use of models and qualifiers allow religious language to be meaningful rather than empty or misleading. His approach helps bridge the gap between finite human understanding and the infinite nature of God.

what are the general issues with analogy

- Aquinas based his work on many assumptions such as:

- - God being responsible for the creation of the universe (5 ways)

- - Humans created in the likeness of God -> by not accepting these two ideas it Is impossible to work out what God is like by examining a creation that may or may not be His.

- The analogy picks some qualities and not all, often only the good ones but it fails to look at if God also possesses the evil qualities that human can have. This was refuted by Aquinas who believes that there is no such thing as evil only the privation of happiness

- Analogy does not stand up to verification, because the object one is trying to illustrate by use of analogy, cannot be empirically verified. Another criticism is that of Swinburne, who argues that we don't really need analogy at all. When we say that God is Good and humans are good we may be using good to apply different things, but we are using it to mean the same thing.

- Analogy only works if we are confident between the link of A and B but how can we be confident of a link with God if we cannot fully understand God - transcendent and ineffable meaning that we could have it completely wrong and we would never know

what are the strengths of analogy for religious language

- The link between creator and created is useful in providing us with meaning (helps convey especially for non believers)

- It can help open up the spiritual realm in both scripture and practice, depending belief and connection (*align with biblical things)

- the middle path between univocal and equivocal does succeed (Ramsey using models and qualifiers to allow us to understand the concept but take it to the correct level above human)

what are the weaknesses of analogy for religious language

- it basically succumbs to equivocal language )there is only two no middle path)

- you've got to take the rough with the smooth when drawing comparisons between creator and the created (analogy of attribution, casual link we imitate God's X so God must have more. What about Hitlers evil?)

- That which we are making analogies about are so distinct and different that we cannot know truly whether our analogies work. Is the link right? We go from reality to transcendent is that doable? ( risk being inaccurate with the analogy - wrong and no knowledge)

- Only as good as the thing that is being used to compare it to (proportion is key)

- there is an assumption that God exists (only analogy of attribution, God is creator of all humans so we can work backward to get the answer, yet does God exist)