rl as analogical

• whose theory is religious language as analogical?

  Aquinas'
• what is an analogy?

  an attempt to explain the meaning of something (which is difficult to understand), by comparing it with something similar
• what does Aquinas' doctrine of analogy follow from his rejection of?

  both univocal and equivocal language to describe God
• if you use the same word to describe different things, what may its use be?

  univocal or equivocal
• what is univocal?

  if a word means exactly the same thing each time
• what is an example of this?

  if you describe both a coat and coal as "black" you're using it univocally (because the word means the same thing in both contexts)
• what is equivocal?

  if a word means different things when used in different contexts
• what is an example of this?

  the word "bat" used to describe a cricket bat AND the animal
• why does Aquinas reject univocal language to describe God?

  because it will limit God, making him too much like the ordinary things to which the word generally refers
• why does Aquinas reject equivocal language to describe God?

  because then nothing is going to be conveyed
• Aquinas argued that language used to describe God's nature should do so...?

  analogically
• in other words, the meaning of a word when applied to earthly things could be extended to be used of God once...?

  it was recognised that it was being used as an analogy, and not in a literal or univocal way
• Aquinas set out 2 different forms of analogy, what are these?

  the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proportionality
• (the analogy of attribution)what is God completely different from?


  the universe
• (the analogy of attribution)nevertheless, there is a causal relationship between the universe and God, why?


  since God is its creator and this gives meaning to language about God
• (the analogy of attribution)what two statements are used for Aquinas' analogy?


  "the bull is healthy" and "the bulls urine is healthy"
• (the analogy of attribution)what does the health of the bulls urine relate to?


  its colour, smell and taste
• (the analogy of attribution)the health of the bull is completely different, nevertheless...?


  the two are linked because the bull produces the urine
• (the analogy of attribution)SIMILARLY, what two statements can we begin with?


  "God is loving" and "Vanessa is loving"
• (the analogy of attribution)God created Vanessa so...?


  God is casually responsible for the love in Vanessa
• (the analogy of attribution)what does this mean that God has?


  what it takes to produce these qualities in Vanessa
• (the analogy of attribution)BUT, Gods goodness isn't moral goodness, what is it rather?


  simply whatever it means for God to be good, and we cannot know what that is
• (conclusion of the analogy of attribution)although we have no idea what it means for God to be good, what is the assertion that God is good?


  meaningful
• (conclusion of the analogy of attribution)what does Aquinas' analogy of attribution seem to solve?


  the problem of using anthropomorphic language
• (conclusion of the analogy of attribution)what does it mean to say that God is love/judge/king etc?


  it means that God has what it takes to produce those attributes in persons
• (the analogy of proportionality)both a human being and God may be described as "powerful", but what do we assume?


  that the meaning of "powerful" in each case is proportional to their respective natures
• (the analogy of proportionality)what does Hick use as an example?


  describing the quality of faithfulness in a human vs a dog
• (the analogy of proportionality)that faithfulness is neither completely different nor the same, so what is the language that we use to compare them?


  neither univocal nor equivocal
• (the analogy of proportionality)what is it instead?


  anaological
• (the analogy of proportionality)the analogy is "downwards" in what sense?


  that there is a big difference between canine faithfulness and faithfulness in humans
• (the analogy of proportionality)what is faithfulness in humans based on?

  self-conscious deliberation (a quality that dogs don't have)
• (the analogy of proportionality)we can also make an analogy "upwards" to the faithfulness of God, how?


  by reversing the analogy, faithfulness in humans is at best a remote approximation to faithfulness or any other quality in God
• (s of the use of analogy to talk about God)why is literal, univocal language going to be inadequate to talk about God?


  because it doesn't take into account Gods transcendence
• (s of the use of analogy to talk about God)what does it tend to reduce God to?

  the status of one thing among many, a possible "thing" - analogy avoids this
• (s of the use of analogy to talk about God)what does analogy avoid?

  anthropomorphising God (because anthropomorphic language isn't meant to be taken as literal)
• (s of the use of analogy to talk about God)religious experiences often take a person beyond words, but in seeking to describe what they've experienced...?


  they need to use words, but recognise that they need to push beyond their ordinary, limited meaning - analogy does this very well
• (s of the use of analogy to talk about God)what does analogy use in order to express something that transcends them?

  ordinary human experience and qualities
• (s of the use of analogy to talk about God)and because it is based on human experiences, what is it?

  cognitive (and it allows language about God to be meaningful)
• (w of the use of analogy to talk about God)in order for both the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proportionality to work effectively, what do you have to have?

  prior knowledge of God
• (w of the use of analogy to talk about God)why do you have to have prior knowledge of God?

  because you cannot argue that Gods love is analogous to human love if you don't know what is meant by the word "God" and you can only show a proportional relationship if you know both things being compared