cataphatic way-via positiva (analogical) Flashcards
1
Q
cataphatic way
via positivia
A
- use analogy
- term used to describe approaches to religous language that use positive terms in order to convey meaning
- analogies r ‘proportional similarities which also acknowledge dissimilar features’
2
Q
aristotle
A
we should look at things which belong to the same genus to see whether identical attributes belong to them all
3
Q
aquinas dates
A
- 1225-1274
4
Q
univocal language
uni=one
A
- when words have 1 meaning
- eg when i say god is loving, the word loving=sam as when i say humans r loving
- fails because god is beyond r understanding
- cant apply same word to god same as humans bc god=transcendent being
- we can understand word when applied to humans but not when applied to god, so cant use same word for god
5
Q
equivocal language
A
- accept words have diff meanings when applied to god
- eg when i say god is loving, word loving=diff to humans r loving
- also fails
- since we dont know what god is we simply wouldnt know what the word loving means when applied to god=meaningless
6
Q
aquinas finds middle ground between uni+equi vocal
A
- not same as god but not completely diff
- as genesis says we r made in gods image n likeness
- so we r LIKE god= were analogous to god
- eg ‘god is love’ can be understood analogically, claim god has a quality of love that is like/analogous to human quality of life
7
Q
analogy of attribution
casual relationshop between 2 things being described
A
- tell somthing about creator of thing by looking at what it causes
- ## we can attribute qualities to creator of thingthat r analogous to those of its creation
8
Q
Analogy of Attribution.
bull n urine
A
- urine of bull=healthy so we can conclude n meaningfully say the bull has an analgouse quality of health
- even if we cant see bull
- humans have qualities like power,love n knowldedge so condlude n meaningfully say r creator has qualities of these that=analogous to r own
9
Q
analogy of proportion
where words relate to object that r diff in proportion
A
- being has quality in a degree relative to its being
- eg: virus has life, plants have life, humans have life, god has life
- illustrates that diff being have diff quality like life to diff degrees of proportion depending on their being
- god=greatest being n thus has qualities to greater degree of proportion than humans
- so we can now add to r statement god has qualities analogous to rs that he has them in greater propotion
- so gods love/power/knowldge=like ours but proportionally greater
- similar to platos forms
10
Q
Analogy of Proportion
hicks developement
A
- john hick developed on aquinas n said humans possses gods qualities bc created in gods image (genesis 1:27)
- but as gods perfect we have his qualities in lesser proportion
- gives eg of faithfullness
11
Q
strength
basis on aquinas natural theology
A
- he accept r reason cant understand gods infinite divine nature
- but argued it can give us lesser knowledge of god incl his nature by analogy- proportion n attribution
- NT=view human reason=capable of knowing soemthing of god, hereits what his qualities r analogous to
- reasons invloved here in figuring out the analogies of a+p
- we can meaningfully talk about gods qualities by analogy
12
Q
natural theology
A
- view human reason is capable of knowing soemthing od god, in this case what his qualities r analogous to
13
Q
weakness
natural theology places dangerous overreliance on human reason
karl barth
A
- karl barth=influenced by augustine who calimed after the fall reason was corrupted by og sin
- so dangrous to rely on reason to know anything about god, incl his morality
- r finite minds cant grasp gods infinite being
- what humans learn via reason isnt divine so to think it is=idolatry (believe earthly things r god)
- idoltary can lead to worship of nations+movements eg nazis
- after fall reason cant reach god/gods morality
- its not r telos
- only faith in gods revelation in bible=valid
14
Q
karl both quote about infinite
A
- “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”
15
Q
defence of aquinas against barth
A
- his argument fails as doesnt address point r reason isnt always corrupted n og sin hasnt destroyed r natural orientation towards the good
-jesus died to get rid of og sin n baptism also gets rid of sin so most christians arent corrupted - og sin can at most diminish r inclination towards good by creating habit of acting against it
- reason can soemtimes discover knowledge of god= religous experineces
- analogy of a+p= eg of valid use of human reasoning to figure out what we can/cant meaningfully say about god
16
Q
jesus died to rid us of sin
romans 8:1
A
“The wages of sin is death, but that death sentence was carried out on him when he died on the cross.”
17
Q
counterpoint of defence of aquinas against barth
A
- he still seems correct that being corrupted by og sin makes r reasoning gods existence n morality also corrupted
- the bad in r nature unforutantely means we cannot rely on the good
- humans bekieving they have ability to know god=same arrogance that led adam n eve to disobey god
- huamns belief that they can figure out r/w=led to arrogance of nazis
- arrogance of NT=evidence of human inability to be humble enough to soley rely on faith
18
Q
swinburne criticism
A
- criticises aquinas for producing an unnecessary theory.
- He claims we can speak of God + humans as ‘good’ univocally, its j that God + humans possess goodness in diff ways.
- Its still same essential quality, even though God is perfect + humans arent
19
Q
criticism of proportionate analogy
r we in gods image?
A
- we may dispute whether humans were really created ‘in image n likeness of god’
- challenged by darwins theory of evolution
- rejected by atheist richard dawkins
20
Q
Whether analogy about God can be accurate
his theory cleverly manages to avoid problems of standard cataphatic language by finding middle ground between them
A
- univocal language fails as werent not saem as god
- equivocal language fails as we arent completly diff from god
- truth doesnt seem to be in middle-that we r like god, that god has qualities analogous to rs but proportionally greater
- also biblically supported
- genesis says we made in gods ‘images n likeness’
- suggest likeness between us n god
21
Q
Whether analogy about God can be accurate
weakness: accuracy problem
brummer
critic of anology of proportion
A
- brummer objects that analogy of proportion fails
- it claims that being has quality to certain degree relative to its nature
- human love is to human nature like divine love is to divine nature
- but brummer points out we dont know gods nature so cannot know way in which god is loving
- were merely saying god is not loving way humans r loving but cant say way god is loving
22
Q
brummer quote
A
“The analogy of proportionality thus takes us no further than a negative theology”
23
Q
brummer against analogy of attribution
continue from critic of AOP
A
- analogy of A meant to deal w this issue
- if we can say gods love=analogous to human love= we can add that god has love proportional to his nature
- but B critics n says: god= source of everything
- attribution can tell us god=source iof human qualities but can tell us what way god has those qualities
- since humans=loving we can attribute to god love to god
- but were merely saying god=source of love
- analogy doesnt enable us to say in what way god=loving
24
Q
problem w both forms of analogy
u have to have prior knowledge of god
A
- How can u argue God’s love= analogous to human love if you dont even know what is meant by the word “God”? How can u show a proportional relationship unless u know both things that r to be compared?
- so, if u believe God exists as creator of the world, that hes personal + source of qualities found in things in the world
- eg the sort of God that is argued for by using Aquinas’ Five Ways
- then it makes perfect sense to use analogy to explain how one might speak of God.
- w/out those assumptions , analogy is less convincing.
25
Q
ian ramsey:
the disclosure model
A
- when we somehow see through and beyond the reality of things in front of us.
- if a polygon is drawn repeatedly with more and more sides, at some point we see a circle.
- a similar thing occurs when using religious language, a disclosure moment.
26
Q
ian ramsey:
the qualified model
A
- ramsey argues words like kind + caring cannot be used equivocally or univocally, so we have to qualify the model with infinitely or eternally.
- by doing so we can use analogy.
