RE Philosophy - Religious Language 1 (Part 2)

What is analogy?

• A comparispon between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

• An approach to religious language that ompares the normal use of a word to it’s religious use. To say God is good means a similar thing as saying John is good.

What is Anthropomorphism?

Conception of God as having the forms, personality or attributes of humans.

What is significance of Analogy?

• It is frequently in everyday speech to describe something that is unfamiliar to us by making a comparison with something that we already know.

• ‘Her face was like thunder’ seems odd when taken literally. Howver, it does communicate something us about her anger.

• Analogies are helpful to a point… Religiously, they are the only opyion available given the difficulties of making univocal or equivocal statements about God.

What does Aquinas argue about religious language?

1. It is possible to talk about God - we can use our everyday language.

2. We use language either univocally or equivocally. Via Negativa = doesn’t say enough about what God is, sought out another method…

3. When we talk about God - then we don’t use words in either of these 2 ways.

4. We should use analogy instead - a comparison of 2 (or more) different things - pointing out the way in which they are similar.

How is Analogy an example of the Cataphatic (Via Positiva)?

• Analogy = when applied to God have a partial resemblence to their normal use.

• Equivocal langage = words when applied to God have a totally different meaning from normal use. No knowledge of God.

• Univocal Language = Words when applied to God have same meaning that they have in their normal context - make God too human.

What is Aquinas’s perspective on Insufficient Means?

• Aquinas rejected both univocal and equivocal language to describe God based on the belief that God is supposedly perfect and infinite.

• However, Aquinas did believe that religious language could be meaningful if used indirectly.

• As neither univocal nor equivocal were suitable, Aquinas had to come up with an alternative way.

• He settled, somewhere between the two, on analogy, believing that describing Godf and other religious ideas by comparing them to something familiar to use would be meaningful.

What did Aquinas suggest about the his use of religious language?

• This is possible (using analogy to understand God) because God is the creator & sustainer of the Universe.

• There is a relationship, therefore, between the world & God.

• This is based on an understanding of God as the ‘1st cause’ of everything.

• There is, therefore, a point of comparison.

What is the Analogy of Attribution (1)?

• Aquinas argues there is a connection between creatures and the Creator and so there is something that can be said about God, using the analogy of attribution.

• Genesis chapters.

• Aquinas looked to analogy to speak about God:

• he used the comparison; The animal is healthy and animal’s urine is healthy.

• There is a link between the two; The bull produces the urine and the bull is responsible for the healthy urine.

• There is a causal link between the bull and the urine.

• Aquinas says the same can be said for God and the universe because he created it.

What is the Analogy of Attribution? (2)

• Aquina’s example of Charlotte’s goodness anfd God’s goodness shows that God is the cause of Charlotte’s goodness because he created her.

• But Charlotte’s goodness and God goodness are not the same, just as the bull and the urine are not the same. God is only responsible for the goodness in people, his goddness is not a greater version of Charlotte’s goodness or ours.

• Just as the Urine is not the bull, so goodness is not God.

What is the analogy of Attribution (3)?

1. The bread is good.

2. The baker is good.

‘Good’ different meanings.

1. The medicine is healthy..

2. The urine is healthy.

The medicine being healthy is the Cause of the urine being healthy. ‘Healthy’ used in similar but not quite the same similar but not quite the same way. Medicine is healthy because it’s healthy in itself not just because it promotes health.

Therefore,

1. The Pope is good

2. God is good.

‘Good’ similar sense in both, God is the source of goodness. God = creator; hence goodness in creation comes from God.

What is the analogy of Proper Proportion? (1)

• Aquinas said when we talk about God being good, it means than human goodness. God’s goodness is proportionally much greater than our goodness.

• It’s like comparing the violin playing of your sister, who is good for a 7 year old, with that of a professional who is Proportionally much better.

What is the analogy of Proper Proportion?

• Theologian Baron von Hugel’s example was that the faithfulness of a human would be proportionally more than of a dog.

• Similarly, when we use a human word to describe God, such as faithfulness, or love, it applies to God in much greater (proper) proportion because God is infinite.

What does Aquinas say about God & Proportion?

• Aquinas used Aristotle’s philosophy; ‘God is pure actuality - he has no potential’.

• In other words; God cannot change, unlike us, he is wholly simple, timeless and spaceless.

• Therefore, it’s possible to say that whatever God is, he is 100% whatever it is to be God.

• God fulfils perfectly his nature and is perfectly whatever is to to be God.

• This allows us to say that God is perfectly ‘good’ - he fulfils his own nature.

What is Hick’s Upward and Downwards?

• Hick agreed with Aquinas but took his use of analogies a little further, distinguishing between upward and downward analogies.

• For examole, ‘my dog is faithful like the world’s best friend’: the faithfulness of dogs is far inferior to the faithfulness of humans, so this is a downwards analogy.

• But the faithfulness of humans is merely a shadow of the faithfulness of God, so this is an upwards analogy: ‘remote approximations’.

How does Hick extend Aquinas’ thoughts on analogy?

• Downwards analogy: e.g. dog’s faithfulness to his master.

• Faithfulness is known directly in ourselves, whereas imperfect faithfulness of dogs is only known by analogy.

• Upwards analogy: i.e. from people to God. Humans are the approximation to the perfect qualities of God.

• In this reversal, it’s our directly known love, wisdom etc which is the approximation & ‘shadow’ to the perfect qualities of God. They are known to us only by analogy.

What does Ian Ramsey suggest about Analogy? (1)

C20th development of the idea of analogy; ‘Religious Language’ (1965).

• Ian Ramsey’s work on religious language should also be seen in the context of arguing against Logical Postivism. i.e. that there was some form of empirical basis for religious language.

‘Models’

• i.e. something that represents somethings else & helps us to understand the original.

• Can be personal (e.g. king) or abstract (e.g. wisdom).

• Our understanding of ‘X’ is the models of our understanding of our understanding of God.

• Is an analogy to help us express something about God.

What does Ian Ramsey suggest about Analogy? (2)

‘Qualifier’

• But, our model for God needs to be qualified - God is ‘infinitely’…

• Leads us to think about God’s… in greater depth.

• Eventually ‘penny drops’ - we gain insight into ‘infinite…’.

• Ramsey calls this ‘disclosure’.

• Is evoked by the qualifier.

Explain Ramsey’s view on analogy?

• If we say that God is good, the model is the word goodness.

• As human beings, we have an understanding of the nature of goodnes (Mother Teresa was a good woman, for example), and when applied to God it is a model for our understanding the nature of God’s goodness.

• But, as we are dealing with God, the model word requires adaptation, thus the term ‘qualifiers’. We recognise that God cannot be literally ‘good’, in our sense of the concepts usage'; thus we need to qualify the statement the ‘God is good’ by adding the qualifier ‘infinitely’.

• The statement now reads God is infinitely good. In this way, we can develop a greater insight (disclosure) into the nature of God’s goodness, enabling us to respond to this insight with a sense of awe and wonder.

What does Ramsay means through ‘The Lord is a Warrior’ example?

• Language ‘warrior’ model to work from.

• ‘Qualifier’ is the Lord may be a warrior but this is not the same as a human warrior armed with sword and shield.

• Eventually, Ramsey argues that a person comes to an understanding by using the model (DISCLOSURE) and a new level of understanding is reached.

• Titles and images of God = models that can eventually lead to us understanding God.

What are the Strengths of using Analogy in Religious Language?

• It avoids the problems of using univocal and equivocal language to describe God.

• It can help humans to speak meaningfully about God by comparing him to contingent things (human concepts that we can more easily understand).

• It helps to preserve the mysterious nature of God - approximations.

• It more closely resembles how theists speak about God (as oppose to the Via Negativa).

What are the weaknesses of using Analogy in Religious Language?

• It leaves us with a limited understanding of God.

• It may not be possible to make a comparison between a necessary and contingent beings.

• Wouldn’t it be easier to just accept that God’s transcendent nature means that not even analogy could describe him?

• Theists normally make religious claims literally not analogically.

• Anthropomorphism

What does Karl Barth make of the use of Analogy in Religious Language?

• Ramsey and analogy in general is mistaken because we cannot approach God by means of language based on our existing experience: We need revelation.

• If Barth is right then any attempt to talk about God fails.

• But then if we can’t use our language to talk God then how does God communicate with his creatures?

What are the problems of using Analogy in Religious Language (1)?

• Is there an adequate basis of comparison? - seeing that God is infinite & humans are finite?

• Stiver: how can we distinguish between more/less appropriate comparisons of God?

• Stiver: Doesn’t this casual approach make the terms refer primarily to us? - & lead to confusion…

• Stiver: is God the cause of everything? - isn’t this univocal language anyway?

What are the problems of using Analogy in Religious Language (2)?

• Swinburne: Analogy of attribution fails because Aquinas is using analogy to explain analogy! Is is contradictory.

• Analogy of proportion is only meaningful when both terms are known - this doesn’t work with God. Stiver calls this form of analogy ‘useless’.