Religious Language: Analogy and Symbol

Question 1

What is an Analogy?

Answer 1

A comparison between one thing and another, usually for the purpose of explanation or clarification

Question 2

What word is Aristotles argument of analogy based upon?

Answer 2

• Homoites, term for ‘likeness’
• In Topics 1, 17 and 18 his idea was that If two things share an attribute then what is true of one is true of the other

Question 3

Quote Aristotle and explain his notion of Analogy?

Answer 3

“we take a man, a horse and a dog… where they have identical attribute… they are alike”
- For example if all hearts beat and the stopping of their hearts beating causes horses and dogs to die then we can conclude that man has a heart and the stopping of this heart will cause man to die

Question 4

What is the flaw in Aristotle’s analogy?

Answer 4

• He does not tell us how much we can assume and the stopping point at which the analogy no longer holds up
• We might assume similarities are not plausible, e.g if a whale has live briths and so do humans, are they then similar in every way shape and form?

Question 5

What are the Four Ways Aristotle judges analogical arguments?

Answer 5

1. Strength of analogy depends on the number of similarities between the two things
2. Similarity exists only in identical relations and properties
3. Good analogies are based on common causes or the same general principle
   4.Good analogical arguments have no relation with underlying generalisations

Question 6

What answers does Aquinas attempt to provide in his Doctrine of Analogy?

Answer 6

• Aquinas addresses the same problems of apophatic problems such as Pseudo-Dionysius, Eriguena and Maimonides
• Deals with the issue of whether we can say anything about God

Question 7

What two points does Aquinas attempt to bring together? (Quote)

Answer 7

• Accepting human language is inadequate in expressing the divine
• Not to assume it is saying nothing of value
  “Our intellect knows him by different conceptions because it cannot see him”

Question 8

Does Aquinas believe we can talk about God?

Answer 8

• He believes that we can have positive awareness that we cannot think of God like he himself does, we are limited by human terms
• He believes that this ability to express and know our limitation says something about God
• To describe God as unknowable is to acknowledge our lack of knowledge and this is a valuable description about God

Question 9

What is Aquinas’ definition of Univocal Language?

Answer 9

• Words used with identical meaning in different sentences
• E.g My Cat is fat and your cat is tabby, cat means the same thing in both sentences
• Religious Language is not like this, we do not describe God in the way we describe humans, that would be anthropomorphising him

Question 10

What is Aquinas’ definition of Equivocal Language?

Answer 10

• Same words used with entirely different meanings in different sentences
• E.g A bat in a cave and a bat for cricket, bat means two different things
• Argues statements such as ‘God is love’ has some meaning if it does not empty the human meaning to God

Question 11

What is Analogy of Attribution?

Answer 11

We can say something about an author/maker from the product they have created

Question 12

Does Christian belief support analogy of attribution?

Answer 12

• Based on Christian belief that God created the universe
• It is not a random generation but what God willed it to be, an intended, deliberate and conscious action
• Gods handiwork allow us to attribute characteristics to him, e.g if beauty is in nature it can be argued God is truly beautiful

Question 13

How does Aquinas support the analogy of attribution?

Answer 13

• Example of a Bulls Urine
• From a Bulls urine we can tell if the Bull is healthy, but it does not follow the Bull is just a puddle of its own urine
• The inference of Good health is justifiable the same way the inferences about God are justifiable from his product of the world

Question 14

What is the Analogy of Proportion?

Answer 14

• From a lesser object we can say that something else, such as God, has proportionately more of the same quality
• e.g If we say that you are a good snooker player we can say that your friend is better, they win more games and pot more balls, they have more of the same quality of being good at snooker

Question 15

Quote Baron Von Hügel on the analogy of proportion

Answer 15

“God… so unspeakably more rich and alive”
- It is har to use an analogy of proportion on God, he is so infinitely more we cannot ever understand him
- There is no strict proportion that can be applied to God

Question 16

Quote John MacQuarrie and expand on Aquinas’ notion of analogy?

Answer 16

“Give us assurance that our talk is not just empty”
- Doctrine of analogy for Aquinas is to not talk about what the terms MEAN, it is about what we are DOING
- In our limited language, we are creating a measure to understand the divine and speak positively about him, not trying to define what he is

Question 17

What is Vincent Brümmer’s argument against the analogy of proportion? (Quote)

Answer 17

“Gods nature is not accessible to us… God is not wise in the same way a human person is wise”
- Analogy can give us the appearance of saying something significant but this is a mere illusion
- We do not know God and no amount of analogy can change that fact

Question 18

What is Vincent Brümmers argument against the analogy of attribution?

Answer 18

• “Leaves us free to call God ‘warm;, ‘multi-coloured’ and ‘heavy’, because he is the source of all warm, multicoloured and heavy objects”
• We make a grave assumption that just because God is the source of something, he himself embodies that thing
• We make this huge assumption knowing nothing about Gods nature

Question 19

What is Ian Ramsay’s ‘Disclosure Situation’?

Answer 19

• Ian Ramsay’s term for an event which reveals something beyond the bare facts of the case

Question 20

How does Ian Ramsay link his Disclosure Situation to religious language?

Answer 20

• Ramsay uses the example of a Polygon where a teacher adds a side each time
• Eventually you will not see the individual sees but a circle, we see through the reality of the straight lines to the full picture (the circle)
• The same way when we use religious language we move beyond the physicality of this world and see the ‘full picture’

Question 21

What is Ian Ramsay’s ‘Qualified Model’

Answer 21

• The use of human language to ‘model’ something

Question 22

How does Ian Ramsay link his Qualified model to religious language?

Answer 22

• ‘First cause’ argument to illustrate a use of a qualified model
• This acts as a model, but models still act differently in practice, e.g car crash simulations still require real tests to be done, no matter how accurate the simulation
• The same way God as a model or as a ‘cause’ is different to any cause we know as he is not a cause like in a science, he is a model in its own rights

Question 23

What is Karl Barths argument against analogy? (Quote)

Answer 23

“Has been given to us by Gods revelation”
- We cannot approach God through language and personal experience as we only him him through revelation
- We can only know God when he reveals himself, analogy fails as it tries to talk of God

Question 24

What is Frederick Ferré’s view on analogy?

Answer 24

• Analogy provides us with a rule enabling us to use theological language about God
• We should not focus on analogies defining transcendental ideas but rather on how we use our language carefully
• God is beyond all understanding but terms can be used in the right contexts

Question 25

Quote Frederick Ferré on analogy?

Answer 25

“limits the use of words… from ordinary non-theological contexts… in theological contexts”
- Agrees with Aquinas that analogy tells us what words about God DO and their function within language, not what they mean

Question 26

What is a Sign for Paul Tillich?

Answer 26

• Something that points to something else by convention
• E.g a road sign, may alert me a bend is coming up ahead or an exit I need to take ahead
• After seeing It I think about what is indicated, the sign itself does not participate in the reality that I might slow my car down for example

Question 27

What is a Symbol for Paul Tillich?

Answer 27

• Something that participates in that to which it points
• E.g The flag of the USA, may alert me I am in the USA, but it participates in the reality
• The flag is in classrooms, courtrooms, coffins etc, it acts as a material reality of the USA
• The flag participates in the history and reality of the USA, it acts a symbol

Question 28

Why did Paul Tillich believe religious language is a Symbol?

Answer 28

• Saying ‘God is love’ is not just a sign of what God is but it participates in the reality of what God is
• Argues it is ‘affirmed and negated’, it is affirmed because God really is love, but negated as it is a human term and limited in power
• Seeing. symbol participate in God is also to acknowledge its limits

Question 29

How does John Hick argue against religious language as symbol?

Answer 29

• ‘Participation’ is not defined, the nature of participation remains unknown
• ‘God is good’, the statement does not provide us with knowing where the symbol is, it is not the same as a flag and its nation
• If an atheist says ‘God is good’, is it a sign because he believes it is fictitious science? where is the participation?

Question 30

What is the issue of making anything a symbol?

Answer 30

• I can treat anything as a symbol, as long as I maintain that I truly believe it
• E.g if I truly believe God is an old woman, I can say that it is affirmed by the true nature of God as an old woman, and negated by the human tea
• There is no criteria for determining whether there is appropriate use of symbols, I can describe God in any terms, no way of judging appropriateness

Question 31

Are all symbols evidently right?

Answer 31

• Can be argued some are just wrong, the flag ‘stars and bars’ is still used by many
• The leaders of this movement are dead and the confederate states are no longer outside of the union
• The flag represents an IDEA that is irrelevant to actual reality, it just participated in their mental reality
• Symbols can be a utopia that only exist in human minds, there is no way of determining the truth or accuracy of it

Question 32

What is J.H Randall’s notion of a symbol being non-representative and non-cognitive?

Answer 32

• Non-representative, a symbol does not stand for any reality beyond itself
• Non-cognitive, a symbol cannot be questioned in terms of whether it is true or false
• The same way a great piece of music evokes emotion, touches a part of our body nothing else does, it expresses nothing but its own musical language
• It tells us nothing bout the nature of things, but only expresses itself to its own fullest extent, the same way religious language expresses nothing but its own special emotions

Question 33

Quote J.H Randall on his idea of symbols?

Answer 33

“teach us how to find the divine; they show us visions of God”
- God is just another name for an aspect of our psyche and spirituality, it is non-cognitive
- Does not seek to explain the accuracy of God as a symbol, it is a valuable cultural function and makes symbols non-representative