Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy of Religion > 4.1 Analogy and Symbol > Flashcards

4.1 Analogy and Symbol Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Religion Crash Course flashcards
1
Q

Key Scholars

A

Aquinas, Tillich, Swinburne and Randall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is religous language?

A

Refers to the words we use to communicate ideas about God, faith, belief and religious practice. When we discuss God’s attributes, or say that ‘God love’s us’, we are using religious language.
ISSUE - often ambiguity in meanings with undermines the traditions and faith of the religion. Some believers solve the problem by arguing that language can only talk indirectly about God - RL is ANALOGICAL or SYMBOLIC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Anthropomorphism - Assigning human characteristics to something non-human, such as an animal or God.

A

Univocal language seems to be anthropomorphic, reducing God to the human level.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. Religious believer makes assertion GOD LOVES US
  2. God is not an EMPIRICAL OBJECT, VERIFIABLE BY EXPERIENCE
  3. Then what does ‘loves’ mean?
A
  1. God’s love is the same as ours - love is used UNIVOCALLY (God’s love is the same as human love)
  2. God’s love is different from ours - love is used EQUIVOCALLY, same words to convey different ‘religious meaning’
  3. Human language applied to God is meaningless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Some philosophers maintain that religious language is equivocal.
What’s the problems with this?

A
  1. If a word like ‘love’ can be used with different meanings, it does not enable us to comprehend God.
  2. The different meanings of equivocal language apply only in human contexts and God cannot be understood in a human context.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

VIA NEGATIVA - The view that no finite concepts or attributes can be adequately used of God, but only negative terms

A
  • Closely linked to equivocal view of language
  • This position particularly characteristic of Eastern Orthodox tradition: All we can say about God is what he is NOT and all language about God are best of limited worth, since these define and limit God.
  • Via negativa has an understanding of God as mystical and ineffable. BUT if God is beyond description than nothing we say is meaningful at all…
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

AQUINAS - language about God is not univocal or equivocal but ANALOGICAL

A

Aquinas’ theory of analogical prediction holds that, since God created the universe, there must be some link between human attributes and God’s. ATTRIBUTES USED AS ANALOGIES.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Analogy of attribution

A

BREAD!!!!!
If we know what constitutes to ‘Good’ in the case of human beings, we can understand something of what ‘good’ means in relation to the creator of human beings, God. God has whatever it takes to produce human goodness.
‘The baker is good’ ‘the baker’s bread is good’ - ATTRIBUTING the same quality to two different things.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Analogy of proportion (downwards analogy)

A

DOG LOVE!!!!
1. I can make a ‘downwards’ analogy from human love to canine love, without knowing what it is like for a dog to love. Equally, I can make an upwards analogy from human love to God’s love. It is meaningful analogically to say that ‘God is good’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

CRITICISMS OF ANALOGY

A
  1. Attribution can be used to prove God is BAD. Use same form of argument to suggest God has whatever it takes to produce badness in humans. AQUINAS COUNTERS badness is not an thing in itself but an absence of Good.
  2. To work, language about God has to be UNIVOCAL and COGNITIVE - there must be something in common between God’s goodness and human goodness, otherwise we can’t understand the analogy.
  3. Aquinas believed God responsible for creation. If we don’t accept Aquinas’ assumptions, we don’t have to accept that we can work out what God is like by examining a creation that may or may not be his.
  4. Analogy picks some good qualities but not others. Does God possess evil qualities as well? COUNTERED by Augustine’s evil as an absence of good.
  5. Analogy tells us NOTHING NEW about God, as its based on thinks already in existence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Swinburne on analogy
USE OF LIGHT

A
  • Possible to describe light as a WAVE and particle as it can display both of these characteristics. We STRECH the normal meaning of LIGHT and WAVE but the words remain with there original meaning.
  • Similarly, we can stretch the meaning of PERSON and KNOWS when applied to God. Just as a person can move parts of their body at will, we can think of God moving the universe at will.
  • He shows we do use analogical language to refer to God(but does not suggest that such talk is meaningful).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Symbols

A

Symbols help us signify ideas and qualities of an object or word that are different from their literal meaning.
E.g. Dove = peace, Red rose = romance
Can symbols be used to convey ideas about God?
The symbol SYMBOL PARTIPATES IN THE REALITY TO WHICH IT POINTS - flag participates in the power of the monarch evoking feelings of passion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Paul Tillich Quote

A

Symbols ‘open up the soul’ to ‘hidden levels of reality’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Tillich

A

A theologian who believed that there are levels of reality beyond the empirical, and these can be partly understood through symbolic language.
THE LANGUAGE OF FAITH IS THE LANGUAGE OF SYMBOLS.
Tillich differentiated between symbols and signs.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Signs

A

Arbitrary representations of something, but they gradually become associated with the thing they represent e.g. blue flashing light the sign of a police car but blue itself doesn’t carry any meaning of this kind.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Symbols as keys to deeper levels of reality

A

Tillich suggests that symbols open up levels of reality that would otherwise be closed to us.
He illustrates this point with analogies from ART, POETRY and MUSIC. We might attempt to account for a work of art through explanation, but that would fail to account for the impact it makes. True for RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM in art - it is possible to explain its meaning using non-religious language.

17
Q

The idea of the holy p1

A
  • Tillich influenced by OTTO. Tillich believed that the reality to which symbols point is this ‘wholly other’ dimension - the holy. Like Otto’s ideas surrounding numinous experiences - a feeling outside the self and not based upon sense experience.
  • Tillich asserted religious symbols stem from the unconscious mind and human culture. God can be understood on two levels 1. non-symbolically as ‘Being-Itself’ 2. Symbolically as a person. If you encounter THE HOLY, you encounter BEING-ITSELF.
18
Q

The idea of the holy p2

A
  • To talk about God as a person is to use the word ‘person’ symbolically, as a way of denoting ‘Being-Itself’ - though the concept of a human ‘person’ has some relationship to the ‘personhood’ of God.
  • Tillich says encountering ‘Being-Itself’ is humanities ultimate concern. Faith is being in an ultimate concern for God - expressed in terms of salvation, redemption and guilt etc.
    Faith cannot be expressed cognitively, symbols are the only way of expressing religious insight.
  • DIVINE JUDGEMENT = when we think we might be the subject of judgement and condemnation by God, this is a symbol of ultimate judgement we make against ourselves.
19
Q

Analysis of Tillich

A
  • Tillich’s main claim is unclear
  • It isn’t obvious in what sense a flag participates in the power of a monarch.
  • John Hick argues there is little difference between a symbol and a sign.
  • Tillich’s view that religious language is symbolic is that it inevitably suggests that religious statements are not literally true.
  • If the ‘ultimate concern’ for God is driven by our own psychology (symbols of self judgement) what basis is there for believing that we are describing anything beyond ourselves and not just the contents of our own minds.
20
Q

American philosopher Randall

A

Argues religious symbols have four main functions:
1. Social
2. Communicational
3. Indicative
4. Motivational - symbols like the cross inspire people emotionally.

The term ‘God’ seems to have no cognitive content - it has been reduced to a symbol for human values.
If ‘God loves us’ is just a symbol, then it tells us nothing at all about an actual being denoted by the term ‘God’.

Philosophy of Religion (15 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions