bullet summary: analogy and symbol

• aristotle said we should look at things which belong to the same genus to see whether identical attributes belong to them all
• we might see 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 find a few ways to judge though:
  • the strength of an analogy lies on the number of similarities
  • a good analogy has obvious links
  • good analogies are based on underlying general principles

• aquinas made the doctrine of analogy
• it tries to deal with the issues of talking about god when 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?
• 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, equivocal and analogical

• 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.
• 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 reminds us of the 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…[it] takes us no further than a negative theology.”
• 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 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
• we have to qualify the model with infinitely or eternally
• by doing so we can use analogy

• karl barth argues that ramsey’s approach is mistaken
• he argues 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
• but 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?
• john calvin’s principle of accommodation might be a good point here

• symbol was 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:
  • point to something beyond themselves
  • participate in that which they point to
  • open up levels of reality
  • 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, but 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, “it doesn’t convey any facts”
• 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 agrees with tillich, and says symbol is non-cognitive (cannot be proven). he says religious language does four things:
  • arouses emotion and makes people act
  • inspires community action
  • allows someone to express experiences non-literally
  • clarifies our experience of god
• this could be memorised with ‘ICE’. I = inspire, C = clarify, E = express emotions.

• 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