RL -> Analogy And Symbol Flashcards
Analogy:
A comparison between one thing and another, usually for the purpose of explanation or clarification
Aristotle
Developed arguments based on the theory of likeness (homoites). If two things share some sort of attribute, the what is true of one should be true of the other.
For example: Dogs, horses and men all have hearts that beat, so if dogs and horses die when their hearts stop beating, so too shall man
Aristotle leaves the question of how much we can assume when making an analogy, with the danger being assumption of similarities that are not there.
For example, both the duck-billed platypus and ducks lay eggs, but only one is a bird
According to Aristotles writings, there are four ways of making judgements about analogical arguments, including ‘similarity exists only in identical relations and properties’
St Aquinas
Aquinas attempts to hold two points: to accept that human language is inadequate to express the divine, but also we do not have to assume it is saying nothing
Aquinas argued that there were 3 types of significant language:
Univocal (words used with identical meaning in different sentences): Using words about ourselves the same as words we use about God runs into the trap of anthropomorphising him
Equivocal (The same word used in entirely different meanings in different sentences): If any sentence used about Gods has a wholly different meaning from any other usage, then we would not have understandable religious language
Analogical (Middle ground between univocal & equivocal): As we are like God (Genesis; Made in his image and likeness), we cannot say what Gods qualities are, but we can say that they are like our own qualities
Analogy of attribution
We can say something about an author/maker from the product they have created
We can therefore meaningfully say that God has a quality of love that is analogous to our human love, as he created the human quality of love
Analogy of proportion
From a lesser object we can say that something else, such as God, has proportionately more of the same quality
Gods qualities are greater than ours, as they are infinite
These analogies are managing to meaningfully say something about God, while respecting the fact that God is beyond our understanding
Von Hügel
Attempts to clarify the point by stating ‘the obscurity of my life to my dog must… be greatly exceeded by the obscurity of the life of God to me’
When we speak of God, according to Aquinas, we are saying that Gods love, or whatever quality it is, is something like that in humans as there is enough in common for us to use those terms
However, the doctrine of analogy doesn’t aim to tell us precisely what the terms about God mean, simply it permits us to say something positive, as our understanding is limited
MacQuarrie summarises this by stating that ‘the way on analogy … is not, of course, a literal or direct way of talking about God’
Criticisms of Aquinas
Brümmer: ‘The analogy of proportionality thus takes us no further than a negative theology’
His point is that analogy gives the appearance of saying something significant about God, but we remain as ignorant as we were before our search
The case is worse with attribution, as we have no ability to determine what we might attribute to God if he is unknown to us
Brümmer argues that when we attempt to use the analogy of proportion, we are making assumptions that we are not entitled to make, as we lack the necessary knowledge to speak with any authority
Additionally, if God had analogous qualities to us, then does this also include bad qualities?
The analogy of attribution would also seem to suggest that God would have qualities such as greed, selfishness and hatred. Aquinas analogy of proportion would also suggest that Gods quality of hatred is proportionately greater to our own.
Ian Ramsey on analogy
He developed two notion;
Disclosure situation: Ramseys term for an event which reveals something beyond the bare facts of the case
Qualified model: The use of human language to model something else. To describe God as the first ‘cause’ uses ‘cause’ as a model to give understanding that everything comes from God, but ‘first’ qualifies the term
The qualifier is used to show how God plays a unique role in the universe, the ‘first’ is the term that conditions the idea of a model
Karl Barth
Argues that Ramseys approach, and analogy in general, is mistaken as we cannot approach God by means of language based on existing experience — we need revelation
If Barth is right about the failure of analogy, then any other attempt to give meaning to talk about God also fails. If Gods revelations can be expressed, than surely they are expressed in human theological language that can be understood. If we cannot understand God, then how can he communicate with his creations?
Sign:
For Tillich, something that points to something else by a convention
Symbol:
For Tillich, something which participates in that to which it points.
Tillich
Tillich claims that religious language is not literal, it is instead symbolic
Just as symbolic language attempts to connect a persons mind to a thing, religious language attempts to connect a persons mind to God
‘God is love’ is not merely a sign of what God is, but a participation in the reality of God. Tillich adds that the term is both ‘affirmed and negated’ by the reality of God
Affirmed; God really is love
Negated; The human term of love is inadequate to describe God
To see the symbol as participating in God is to also acknowledge its limitations
This brings into question whether we are any further forward than with analogy? As symbolic language tells us what the terms do, not what they mean. This is no more or less true than with analogy.
John Hick
Raised questions on the idea that a symbol ‘participates in that to which it points’
Simply saying it participates does not tell us about the nature of that participation
For example, what is the symbol in the sentence ‘God is good’?
As;
If ‘God’ simply stands for the unknown nature of God, how exactly does it participate?
Is the symbol the entire proposition? Or merely the underlying goodness of God
If an atheist uses the sentence, is it a sign? (As they think the sentence is fictitious), while for a believer it is a symbol.
Additionally;
We need to question if there are, not only, different levels of participation but also if there is a way to determine if symbolic language is appropriate
We cannot determine the truth or accuracy of a symbol, especially due to their ever changing nature (Swastika example)
J. H. Randall Jr. & Symbols as non-cognitive
He argues that symbols are both non-cognitive & non-representative (something that does not stand for any reality beyond itself)
For Randall, God is our ideals, an intellectual symbol for what we feel to be divine, in this view God is another aspect of our psyche
Randalls interpretation does not seek to determine the truth or accuracy of God as a symbol, religion is merely human enterprise that provides a cultural function
Analogy vs Via negativa
The apophatic way is a continual reminder not to anthropomorphise God, but only achieves this at the expense of not saying anything truly informative. It also carries the danger of permitting s to have vague and inaccurate notions about God, on the basis that if we have no certain knowledge, anything could be possible.
Analogy seems to allow for a more positive approach, provided it is specified that we are describing God with theological language, not stating meaning
An advantage of using analogies over saying nothing is that we can discuss whether an analogy is appropriate, even with the belief that it cannot wholly grasp Gods nature
