condensed: RL, analogy and symbol

analogy

aristotle on analogy

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

aristotle

we might see that if a horse and a dog both have beating hearts, a man will too.

aristotle did not leave instruction on how far to assume. at what point is not helpful? we might say birds and platypuses both lay eggs so they are both birds. our conclusion is wrong. we can deduce four ways to judge:

1. the strength of an analogy lies on how many similarities there are
2. similarity only exists in identical relation and properties
3. good analogies are based on underlying general principles
4. a good analogy has obvious links

st thomas aquinas on analogy

aquinas is well known for the doctrine of analogy. it tries to deal with the issues of talking about god, the same as the scholars of the apophatic way. our words do not do us justice. how can anyone describe god, whom they cannot comprehend, in a way that does not make a false image?

aquinas recognises this. he argues to know and express the limits of our language is saying something about god. to describe god as unknowable is doing this. he argued there is three types of language:

• univocal: words that have one objective meaning
• equivocal: words with subjective or multiple meanings
• analogical: language used to make an analogy

he argued for two types of analogy:

analogy of attribution: the idea that we can say something about an author or maker from the product. our goodness comes directly from god. a loaf of bread is good because it has a good baker, the attributes of the bread come from its maker, even if they don’t share attributes. god causes our attributes this way. we don’t know what god’s goodness is but we see it in ourselves.

analogy of proportion: the idea that lesser objects can say something else, such as god, has proportionately more of the same quality. to understand the nature of god, this is the best analogy. there is a proportionate relationship between all things.

for example the following three are proportionate: god has life, humans have life, plants have life. we see plants as alive, but not in comparison to us. so god’s life must be greater than ours.

the doctrine of analogy does not tell us precisely what terms we use for god mean, because we can’t know, but it permits us to say something rather than nothing.

vincent brummer on the problems of analogy

there is an issue in suggesting we can usefully say how we use these terms without knowing what they mean applied to god:

god’s nature is not accessible to us, nor therefore is the way in which he is wise. it follows that in using the analogy of proportionality we are saying no more than that god is not wise in the same was a human person is wise…[it] takes us no further than a negative theology.

brummer

analogy gives the appearance of being helpful but we remain ignorant. we are making assumptions for which we lack the necessary mode of language.

ian ramsey on analogy

ramsey supports aquinas’ ideas. he has two notions:

the disclosure model: 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.

the qualified model: ramsey argues words like kind and 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.

alternative views of analogy

karl barth’s view

barth argues that ramsey’s approach is mistaken, because we cannot approach god with any means of language, we need revelation. thus not only analogy but all language fails to give meaning to god.

if god’s revelations can be expressed then surely they are expressed in human language? that is how we can understand. if god can’t communicate in our language, how can he do so? calvin’s principle of accommodation might be a good point here.

symbol

developed by paul tillich, he argues that religious langauge is symbolic, not literal. symbols are something we all participate in, like flags, how we feel unity and pride in a flag.

to tillich they do four things:

1. point to something beyond themselves
2. participate in that which they point to
3. open up levels of reality
4. open the dimensions of the soul

tillich calls this the theory of participation. symbols help express what words can’t, and it is the only meaningful way to describe god. the cross is symbolic and shows god’s love for humanity, forgiveness, and jesus’ sacrifice.

tillich said god is the ultimate symbol, calling him the ‘ground of all being’. he argued symbols can change and die out over time. an example for this is the sacrifice of lambs because jesus was the lamb of god. this has lost meaning.

john hick criticised tillich’s idea of participating, calling it unclear. what is the difference between a symbol and a sign?

william alston argues symbols are meaningless because we can’t validate them.

paul edwards argues symbols are meaningless because they cannot be verified or falsified, because they are subjective.

john macquarrie proposed the existential response, in which he said symbols and signs link to human existence. water cleanses us, so water is seen as cleansing like in baptism. there is also a similarity of relation, which is almost analogy, such as god looks after us like shepherds like god looks after us.

j.h. randall and symbols as non cognitive

j.h. randall agrees with tillich, and says symbol is non-cognitive (cannot be proven). he says religious language does four things:

1. arouses emotion and makes people act
2. inspired community action
3. allows someone to express experiences non-literally
4. clarifies our experience of god

this could be memorised with ‘ICE’. I = inspire, C = clarify, E = express emotions.

comparison of apophatic and symbol/analogy

• via negativa reminds us not to anthropomorphosise god, but lacks any information. it could allow us to make false statements because if we say nothing, anything is possible.
• analogy is more positive, as long as we know we are only saying how we are using religious language, not what it means. analogy retains god’s nature while reminding us our linguistic limits.
• an advantage of analogy is that we can discuss whether analogy is appropriate even while it doesn’t fully grasp god
• john hick questioned whether tillich’s theory is a variant on analogy, given a lack of clarity
• there is no way of telling if analogy or symbol is better, neither is able to do justice to god, maybe value lies in inexpressibility.