4C RL as Non-Cognitive and Analogical Flashcards
What did Aquinas consider?
- The function of language and how we could further understand the mysteries of divine nature
- G = essentially unknowable. It is the task of the believer to develop deeper insights by reflecting on creation and teachings
What is univocal language?
- When the same term has the same meaning whatever the context
- E.g. ‘carpet’
- “evident that nothing can be predicted univocally of God”
- G = so different from us that any use of a univocal word = hopelessly inadequate
What is equivocal language?
- When the same term has different meanings according to the context
- E.g. ‘set’
- “appears that not everything predicted of G…is said in a purely equivocal way”
- We know the word had a different meaning, but would have no knowable terms of reference/context to understand meaning
What was Aquinas’ middle ground between univocal and equivocal language?
- Analogy
- He accepted that part of what was being spoken about was imperfectly understood (G could never be fully understood as he is too great and humans too limited)
- But the object being referred to = fully understood
What is the key to the success of an analogy?
• The strength of the link/relationship
• “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” ∴ there is a definitive link btwn humans and G
∴ Speaking about G = understood by an understanding of what it meant to be human, from human nature + purpose
What is the analogy of proportion?
• The universe = inhabited by different hierarchical orders of things: G - humans - animals - plants etc
• Each order possesses characteristics which are appropriate to itself even though the same adjective may be applied
• A human = intelligent in proportion to what it means for a human to be intelligent. A fox = the same
• There is a difference in proportion to the reality that the thing being spoken about possesses.
∴ it’s possible to talk analogically about G w/ reference to human qualities
• To talk about G as being ‘good’ makes sense:
- G = good in proportion to what it means for G to be good
- A human = good in proportion to what it means for a human to be good
What is the analogy of attribution?
• Attribute = characteristic possessed by something
• Common positive attributes for humans = ‘good’, ‘loving’, ‘wise’ etc
• Attributes = entirely divinely inspired
• Humans can only be good ∵ goodness comes from G and we come from G
• Humans are not independently good, but good ∵ dependent on G
• E.g. ‘healthy’
- If a bull’s urine = healthy, you can determine that the bull = healthy
- The urine is not intrinsically healthy, but derives its healthiness from its relationship with the bull
- The health of the bull is more completely and perfectly within the bull itself and is only reflected in the urine produced by the bull. In the same way G is the source of qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly.
• As long as the human equivalent quality = understood, insight can be gained into what it means, in relation to G
What is the analogy of attribution also known as by some philosophers?
• The analogy of reference
How did Hick develop the analogy of proportion/reference?
- “Consider the term ‘faithful’.
- “A man or a woman can be faithful, and this shows in particular patterns of speech, behaviour and so on.
- “We can also say that a dog is faithful. Clearly there is a great difference between the faithfulness of a man or woman and that of a dog, yet there is a recognisable similarity or analogy – otherwise, we would not think of the dog as faithful.
- “Further, in the case of the analogy between the human beings and the dog true faithfulness is something we know in ourselves, and a dim and imperfect likeness of this in the dog is known by analogy.”
Give a quote from Ian Ramsey about religious experience from his book, ‘Religious Language’.
• “All experience is effectively a religious experience as all experience is a continual encounter between God and his creation.”
Explain Ramsey’s disclosures.
- Something made known when previously hidden.
- R.l. = grown from revelatory r. situations; these exp.s = known as disclosures - moments where the human is often able to grasp understanding of the divine
- Not all moments of disclosure are r.
- The moment = appreciated + realisation of something else going on that could not be described in normal language ∴ analogy used
- Models = words used
- Key terms = Father, Shepherd, King, Rock; each reveal a particular view about G e.g a Shepherd protects
Where did Ramsey get the inspiration for his idea of disclosure?
• Max Black’s idea of analogue models
Explain Ramsey’s qualifiers.
- Words/phrases used to give deeper meaning to a model
- Disclosure models = insufficient to refer to G ∴ qualifiers used to provide the sense that the models = greater than what their normality represented
- E.g. G cannot be good in the human sense ∴ add the qualifier, ‘infinitely’, to give deeper insight into G’s nature`
What is the first challenge to Aquinas/Ramsey? (Hume)
- Analogy = only as good as the point at which the two things being compared are similar
- What do we know when we use the word ‘God’?
- What empirically/quantifiably constitutes God?
- Unless we can answer this, our point of comparison fails ∴ analogy fails
What is the second challenge to Aquinas/Ramsey? (existence)
- Both men assume G’s existence
- If we dismiss this assumption, it creates a serious philosophical issue for analogous r.l.
- W/o G’s existence, there is no point of comparison
