critically compare analogy and via negativia as methods of approaching religious language

via negatvia - only negative statements about God, biblical backing, aviods anthropormising God, pratical applicational issuses

analogy - postive/infernential statements made about God, aviods anthropormising God, base in natural theology, good application. aquiin

ARG → both similarities between the analogy and via negativia as methods of approaching religious language… but the biggest difference is what we can actually know about God from them, analogy gives us a deeper sense of understanding of what God is that is needed when we use religious language whilst the via negativia does not go as far in depth.

PARA 1 → one major difference between the via negativa and analogy is that the via negativia argues only negative statements can be made about God whilst the analogy (or via postivia) argues that postive implications can be made about God.

  • VN → The Via Negativa approach is that it is true to God’s transcendence and otherness. We can learn somethiing about God by saying what he is not - e.g maimondies + the ship

  • VP → Positive statements can be made about God as we infer them from what we empirically see → analogy of attribution where we see relfections of the nature of God in humanity and around us

  • VN would attack VP for its basis in natural theology, which is dangers as it may seek to move God onto our level and not fully understand the mystery of God that vn protects. brunner supports as he highlights how human rationality is limited by the fall and so is seeing the relfections of God in man because our imageio dei is completely destroyed.

  • VP response → Talking about God Via Negativa is not really how most religious believers want or intend to talk about God. We could add to Aquinas’ point that the religious language you hear during worship and even in the Bible is not consistent with Via Negativa. When speaking about God, they probably do accept that their description depends on their human experience/understanding which they are attributing to God by analogy, yet accepting that God is nonetheless infinitely greater. Brain Davis takes this a step further criticsing the ship analogy and how we cannot actually learn anything about God through negitve lanauage - we might as well get a wardrobe, - can be dangerous and give us completely wrong ideas

  • thus the vp seems to better highlight how we actually speak about God, whilst the vn seems not to grasp how to - esepcially to those just learning about God, as through only talking negatively about God it presumes an already established based knowledge

  • OVERALL → there is a fundemental difference between the ways in which we can talk about God with these two approaches. however speaking postively about God seems to the best way to actually use religious lanauge to learn something about God. aquinas does realise that we will never truely know God due to limiations in the human mind, but this does not mean that we shouldnt try to learn something positive about God

PARA 2 → one major similarty is that both theories aim not to antrhoposmise God.

  • the VN The main strength of the Via Negativa approach is that it is true to God’s transcendence and otherness. Almost all theologians agree on God’s transcendence. Otto called God “wholly other”, meaning radically different to anything else we experience or understand. Augustine comments that whatever we can comprehend is not God.

  • the VP Strength: Aquinas’ theory of analogy cleverly manages to avoid the problems of standard cataphatic language by finding a middle ground between them. Univocal language fails because we are not the same as God and equivocal language fails because we are not completely different. The truth does seem to be in the middle – that we are like God, that God has qualities analogous to ours but proportionally greater. for example - the analogy of proper propotion + brain davis good baker vs good bread

  • The VN however would attack the VP, because they would see speaking any positive sense about God as a form of anthroporimism, even if it is backed by the bible, mainmodies highlights how the bible is composed of limited human lanague that could be wrong about God

  • The VP’s response - When Christians (or the Bible) says ‘God is love’, Christians know that God’s love is beyond anything we can understand, but it is still analogous to human love, though proportionally greater. we are not anthroposiming God… but rather understanding him on a deeper level. this is something that the VN cannot achieve, in presevering the transecdence and mystery of God, it is flawed because it doesnt actually give us any information about God, nothing to learn about him at all. Inge further critques the VN because it leads us to loose our connection to God

  • OVERALL → Thus, both the via negativia and postivia are theories of religious langauge that do not anthropormise God, however they are different in what they can actually teach us about God, which when comparing them makes the via postivia more useful because it gives us more to talk about God, so long as we recognise through analogies that God is ultimatlely a higher being than us that we cannot really understand

PARA 3 → one major difference is that analgoies better fit with the way in which we speak about God, whilst the via negativia is quite different to how we discuss God

  • VN → negative terms, does not fit in with the bible God is love” and “God is spirit”. God even himself describes himself in positive terms: ”I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” it appears to be in conflict with the bible

  • VP → much more pratical way of looking at God, fitting better with a christians experience about God eligious language you hear during worship and even in the Bible is not consistent with Via Negativa. Aquinas thinks his theory better captures religious language. The analogy of attribution and especially proportion arguably actually are ideas that the average Christian accepts. - hick + the dogs faithfulness

  • However the VP in being more pratical may just be, as swinburne highlights, strechting the meaning of God, there are inherent pratical issuses with its use within religious circles

  • May lead to us ultimately recognsing that there is vagueness within both the via negativia and the via positiva, however utlmiately one seems to be more pratical and inlign with how we actually discuss God, even if it may be a vicitim to the similar critques.

  • OVERALL → the VN and VP can both be vague theories, but the VP does seem to be more pratical and inlign with how as practising Christians God is discussed in circles. Therefore making it more useful.