Aquinas vs Wittgenstein - LG2 Flashcards
INTRO - define
Aquinas - cognitive approach -statements about God are true/false
Wittgenstein - non-cognitive approach - statements about God are not subject to truth or falsity
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
Aquinas analogy fails in allowing the religious believer to understand what statements such as ‘God is love’ whilst Wittgenstein LG approach does. However, if you accept Wittgenstein’s approach you would have to accept that religious claims about God are neither true or false
Section one: theme
Cataphatic way
Section one: AO1
ANALOGY
A range of ways of speaking about God and theological ideas using only terms that say what God is. Aquinas rejected both equivocal and univocal language and that talk about God can only be meaningful via analogy
Section one: AO2 FOR
ANALOGY
Analogy of attribution: Can help non-believers understand the partial truth behind religious language through the idea of casual relationships e.g. we call a bull’s urine healthy due to its good health is likewise to calling God good and infer that must mean humans are good as we all participate in God’s essence .
-Religious believer can grasp this
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
Maintenance of essential nature means able to take some of analogy of proportion meaningful
Section one: AO2 AGAINST
ANALOGY
Brummer: No different from the apophatic way as idea of God is still unclear. Indeed, all that Aquinas has stated is that “God is not wise in the same way that a person is wise,” which demonstrates how we are no closer to fathoming what God’s wisdom is.
-All still remain ignorant and Gods wisdom only really meaningful to the religious believer in the context of the LG
Analogy of proportion:
inaccurate and unclear as difficult to make sense of different magnitudes of a quality when thinking “upwards” (epistemic distance)
- Can lead to miscommunications and misunderstandings – fails communication with the non-believer.
- LG – Only makes sense (more of an explanation rather than trying to clarify Gods qualities)
Section one: AO2 CONCLUSION
ANALOGY
Essential nature only allows analogy of proportion for philosophical qualities as can understand concepts such as ‘God is necessary’ as clear definition . Existential nature has tainted our understanding of theological qualities e.g. ‘love and forgiveness’ – hard to make proportionate analogy as conception far too removed
Section two: theme
Wittgenstein
Section two: AO1
LANGUAGE GAMES
Needs something else to extend discussion to theological qualities. Language games gain meaning from its connection to social reality. A ‘Language game’ exists when multiple people communicate. ‘Game’ as each language game consists of rules – in each social situation a person will act a certain way as they have internalised and are following certain rules which govern their behaviour, including speech. Possible for people to communicate as they share an understanding of the criteria of that game. Religious people: Language games about faith, emotions, social conventions
Section two: AO2 FOR
LANGUAGE GAMES
Culpitt: Theological non realism – God is not something that exists but simply a reality in the language game of faith – concerned with the meaning of God only in peoples lives
God is love – more concerned with the experience and having faith in God’s love rather than the objective existence of a God to give love. Faith is a stance in life and God has no objective reality.
-Anti-realist non-cognitive stance – faith is communal matter and faith should be used to describe this
Section two: AO2 AGAINST
LANGUAGE GAMES
Truth matters: In a religious community the word ‘God’ is not simply meaningful to only those in the community – non-cognitive approach means does not capture to those not participating in the language game what is meant by ‘God’
Section three: theme
Need to use analogy when understanding the philosophical qualities of God but Language games with theological language such as love
Section three: AO1
LG VS ANALOGY
Language games enable people within religion to make meaningful statements such as ‘God exists’ as they are participating in the Language game of religion. However, Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach means that claims such as ‘God exists’ is not scientific proof and are meaningless outside the Language game. However, arguably Aquinas maintains this.
Section three: AO2 FOR
LG VS ANALOGY
Aquinas: Doctrine of casual participation means that the creator always transfers a part of themselves into their creations.
-Easier to use AofP… to philosophical qualities as analogy assumes some experience of the quality in the world to act as a grounding point i.e. intelligent designer from order and purpose
-Harder with theological qualities e.g. love – human experience so drastically different from any divine application
-Use Wittgenstein approach when considering specific, theological properties as accepts that in religious lebensform ‘love’ is a symbol of communication rather than an accurate representation of these qualities
