Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

religious language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic > cataphatic way-via positiva (analogical) > Flashcards

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’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

aristotle

A

we should look at things which belong to the same genus to see whether identical attributes belong to them all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

aquinas dates

A
  • 1225-1274
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

natural theology

A
  • view human reason is capable of knowing soemthing od god, in this case what his qualities r analogous to
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

karl both quote about infinite

A
  • “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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.

religious language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions