Analogical Language Flashcards
(6 cards)
How does Aquinas’ analogical approach offer a meaningful way of speaking?
-Aquinas’ analogy of attribution offers a meaningful way to speak about and understand God by suggesting that human qualities reflect God’s nature because He is their cause
- A modern scholar, B David, expanded on this as argued that just as we can call bread “good” because it was made by a skilled baker, we can describe a human as “good” because their goodness originates in God
_This does not mean that God’s goodness is identical to human goodness, but rather that there is a connection between the two, since God is the ultimate source of all good
What was Aquinas’ urine example?
-Aquinas uses the analogy of healthy medicine and healthy urine: the urine is only described as healthy because it reflects the healthiness of the medicine that caused it
-In the same way, when we describe a human as good, it is only because that goodness reflects something of God’s nature
-This helps avoid the problem of using univocal language, which would reduce God to human terms, and also avoids equivocal language, which would make talk about God meaningless
-Therefore, analogy of attribution allows us to speak about God in a way that is both respectful of His transcendence and rooted in observable human experience.
How does the Aquinas’ analogy helps us avoid describing God like he’s a human being?
-Aquinas also developed the analogy of proportion to explain how language can describe God without implying He is like a human being
-This approach suggests that words like “good” or “faithful” apply to both humans and God, but in proportion to the nature of each being
-For instance, a child and an ant can both be called “small,” but the term means something different in each case depending on their kind. -Similarly, Aquinas believed that God possesses qualities such as love or faithfulness in an infinitely greater degree than humans
How did John Hick help develop Aquinas’ point?
-John Hick illustrates this with Hugel’s example of faithfulness: dogs can be faithful, humans more so, and God infinitely more, all according to the nature and capacity of each
-So when we say “God is good,” we are not claiming that God is good in exactly the same way a human is, but that He possesses goodness to the highest possible degree, in line with His divine nature
-This view allows us to make sense of religious language without reducing God to a human level or making Him completely unknowable
What are some weaknesses of Aquinas’ analogical concept?
-Philosophers influenced by logical positivism, like A.J. Ayer, would say that statements like “God is good” are unverifiable and therefore meaningless. If we can’t observe or test what it means to say “God is good in proportion to His nature,” it fails to meet modern standards of meaningful language (it’s outdated)
-One major criticism is that analogical language is too imprecise. Saying God is “good” in a way proportionate to His nature might sound clever, but it doesn’t tell us clearly what God is actually like. Some argue it borders on being meaningless because the gap between human and divine nature is so vast that proportion loses any real explanatory power.
What are some rebuttal arguments to the weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument?
-A strong rebuttal to A.J. Ayer’s logical positivist criticism is found within Aquinas’ own intent: analogical language was never meant to offer scientific or empirically testable claims, but to make religious language meaningful without reducing God to human terms» His analogy of attribution, especially as clarified by B. Davis’ bread and baker example, shows that when we say “God is good,” we’re not making a literal or measurable statement, but rather a relational one, grounded in the belief that goodness in the world reflects its divine source, It allows believers to speak of God in a way that preserves mystery, avoids anthropomorphism, and still reflects real qualities, even if not in an empirical sense.
