To what extent is Aquinas’ analogical view of religious language valuable in the philosophy of religion

  • strengths of analogy → middle ground, (proportion) we can see God in humans (attribution), not trying to say what God definentely is but rather trying to create some meaning

  • weakness → we can see God in humans, attribution = falsification theory, would reject this, not faslifable… defense. creating some meaning through harnesssing rationalitly, vs karl barth who argues we are limited in our knowledge. middle ground between lanauge vs non cognativist theories such as symoblic lanauage and langauge games, analogies arent singifcant it is about what we think instead. (not capturing the role of religion in human life…)

ARG → valuable in the philosophy of trying to defend religious lanauge, but perhaps not in the actual practise of speaking about God in faith circles, since his theory does not always aline with our personal experiences of religion.

PARA 1 → analogy creates a middle ground of lanauge which is valauble in the philosophy of religion

  • analogies do not use univocal lanauge or equivocal lanauge, therefore the aviod the common issuses of relgious lanauge which seemingly anthropromises God or makes us confused about his nature in comparision to ours whilst still getting lanauage to maintain its cognative function.

  • for example to analogy of proper proportion, supported by brain davies through the good baker and the good bread

  • HOWEVER → aquinas certinally defends the intergrity of human lanauge yet utliametly is religious lanauge even analogious…

  • newer developments in the 20th century religious langauge debates diminish the value of aquinas theory in a pratical sense, wittgenstiens lanauge games for example provides a non cognative philisophical approach to religion, where the meaning of religion is within the religous communities and to those outside of religon it is ulitmately meaningless

  • wittgenstien in comparsion to aquinas approach, highlights better how we actually exprience the phenonomon of religious lanauge as it has meaning to our groups yet not meaning to everyone. analogious lanauge on the other hand with its cognative focus gives religious lanauge meaningfulness to everyone and where it is not recieved

  • OVERALL → aquinas middleground may defend religious lanauge from a philisophical standpoint, yet from a faith/christian perspective his ideas do not coinside with how religious lanauge works in practise, rather non cognative theories surve this best.

PARA 2 → aquinas analogy of attribution is useful as it allows us to deeply understand the nature of God

  • AA → can see the reflection of God in human attributes, for example the loving nature of humans may reflect the omnibenevolence of God but he

  • aquinas + the bulls urine

  • slightly empirical way of baising our faith and something that everyone can easily experience, thus aquinas does not place restriction on who can understand God

  • HOWEVER → falsificationist flew would argue that the analogy of attribution is ulimately unfalisifable, The analogy rests on the presupposition that God exists and created the world in his image, which are metaphysical assertions that cannot be empirically tested, verified, or falsified. We may be able to see pale reflection of God in human action, but to what extent is it just the death of 1,000 qualifications

  • parable of the garnder, just as the believer shifts his view and says that the garnder is invisible a religious believer may also suggest that God gave humans free will so they may commit evil actions that do not coinside with his nature

  • OVERALL → analogy of attribution which is a signifcant part of aquinas theory does not ulitmately stand up to falsifcation, which is one of the strongest attackers agaisnt meaningful religious lanauge. Thus showing how in principle aquinas theory may be valuable yet in praticise especially when it is faced with critiscms it is not.

PARA 3 → aquinas is not fully trying to say what God is

  • one of the biggest strengths of aquinas theory is that he is ulitmately not trying to fully explain the nature of God and religious , because he recognises that this is ultimately something that is beyond the scope of human finiteness

  • instead, he is rather trying to get us to say something meaningful about God though using our reason to compherend what we can about him and apply it to our faith. natural theology link

  • HOWEVER → the method behind this however is contradicted by barth who argues that natural theology places an overreliance on human reasoning, when actually human nature and reason has been signifcantly distorted due to the fall

  • we cannot actually compherend God using the natural theology method within aquinas analogy theory because we are not reliable enough to cultivate such knowledge, may lead to human arrogance and many christians would be hesitstant to purely rely on reasoning to understand an already complex phenomon of religious lanauge

  • OVERALL → whilst aquinas in theory may provide a bridge within debates of religious lanauge, since he allows for some meaning of God to be maintained without trying to fully answer the ineffiable, in the pratical use of his theory it is dimished through the theological principle of orginal sin and human corruption which leaves his theory to be unable in practicse be be valuable in discussions over religious lanauge.