Aquinas' analogical approaches

Question 1

INTRO - define

Answer 1

Cataphatic way - talk about God using positive language
Rejects both equivocal and univocal

Question 2

Section 1: AO1

ANALOGY

Answer 2

Analogy of attribution: Words that are applied to humans are related to words applied to God as there is a causal relationship between the two sets of qualities. (Analogy of the bull’s urine) Likewise by examining human love we may see pale reflections of the divine attributes

Analogy of proportion: God has qualities similar to ours but to a higher degree. For example human love is smaller in proportion to God’s omnibenevolence. Human faithfulness is in a higher proportion to a Dog’s faithfulness (Hick)
Allows the theist to have a connection with God with a small understanding of Gods love in juxtaposition to ours

Question 3

Section 1: AO2 FOR

ANALOGY

Answer 3

Univocal so avoids speaking anthropomorphically about god and is not equivocal so avoids agnosticism (that God’s nature cannot be known)

The method of analogy that invites us to speak about God in visual terms is not dissimilar to the method that Jesus used when describing the Kingdom of God. “The Kingdom of God is like…”

Question 4

Section 1: AO2 AGAINST

ANALOGY

Answer 4

May misrepresent God as analogies such as “God is my shepherd” may be misunderstood and mean different things to different people

Does not communicate effectively to the non-believer as by saying that Gods love is like our love but infinitely greater it is still vague and unclear of what Gods love is.

Question 5

Section 2: AO1

APOTHATIC

Answer 5

Moses Maimonides the only positive statement that can be made about God is that he exists. All other statements about God must be negative as otherwise, it would be improper and disrespectful. However the negative can still bring us knowledge of God. The analogy of the ship: If we say that the ship is not an accident, a mineral, a natural body then by the tenth statement we will have some knowledge about what the ship is. In the same way the Via Negative allows us to gain some knowledge of God.

Question 6

Section 2: AO2 FOR

APOTHATIC

Answer 6

“God is beyond all meaning and intelligence…no creature can comprehend how or was he is” (John)

Supported by RE – James criteria for RE include how they are ineffable – cannot be placed/ described in ordinary language

Question 7

Section 2: AO2 AGAINST

APOTHATIC

Answer 7

Even if the apophatic way gives some knowledge of God it is incredibly limited in what can be known. It is not clear that in the ship e.g. A ship can be described in the way that he maintains. Even less likely that this method can bring any knowledge of God

The apophatic way is not a true reflection of how religious believers speak or think about God. The scripture of all faiths describe God in positive terms.

Dr Inge: denying any description of God leads to an annihilation of God where we potentially lsoe any connection between God and the world. Flews gardener – idea of a God is not visible / intangible seems to be bear very little difference to their being no God at all

Question 8

Section 3: AO1

SYMBOL

Answer 8

Theory of Participation – symbolic language participates in what it points to. For example the crucifix is part of what it means to be Christian and symbolic of God’s love and forgiveness. Arguably this enables the religious believer to gain a meaningful and spiritual understanding of God without confining God into language when Gods attributes are beyond human comprehension.

Question 9

Section 3: AO2 FOR

SYMBOL

Answer 9

Criteria: both believers and non-believers are satisfied, since communication and expression work as people can connect to a symbol and there is little chance of misunderstanding what the symbol means

Optimises respect of God as no knowledge of God is assumed – rather revolves around a human connection and almost illustration of him – respectful way to talk about him

Misses Tillich’s point. Not trying to present verifiable facts but communicate moral truths and understanding. Symbols allow an understanding of

Question 10

Section 3: AO2 AGAINST

SYMBOL

Answer 10

Alston argued that symbols lack verifiability, which Edwards agreed, stating that “it doesn’t convey any facts,” and thus cannot encapsulate a clear image of God as we still do not know anything with certainty