Analogy

Aquinas

Against via negative because rejects the use of negative language for God as it does not say anything directly about God, language needs to be more concrete when applied to God
Against univocal (words used universally, same in each scenario eg pig is fat Steve is fat) and equivocal language (words that are dependent on context eg love etc subjective) and states analogy is a middle ground (bible uses equivocal)

1 of 7

Brian Davies example= the bread is good, the baker is good
Aquinas’ example= animal is healthy, animal’s urine is healthy (although the health of urine and animal are different they are connected as the animal produced the urine- don’t have to see animal, urine show it is healthy)
Look at the world and without seeing the creator you can understand things about the creator
Because God created the world God is revealed through it
It remains unclear what it means for God to be ‘good’ all we can do is deduce from the good creation God Is good- attributing qualities to God
A Posteriori (observation)

2 of 7

Refers to the nature of what something is
Example= a tribe in an Amazonian jungle, all mathematicians have never seen a car before, you tell them you have the perfect car and although they have never seen a car before they understand what it means to be perfect as they know a perfect circle, they have an idea of perfection
We have an idea of perfection and good and therefore understand Godin proportion to these
God measures up to what we believe is good- subjective
A Priori

3 of 7

His models and qualifiers relate to analogy
Models are words and titles applied to God eg the human brain is like a computer but this does not tell us enough (meaningless) therefore they need qualifiers eg the brain is like a computer but is not made up of microchips
When we use language to describe God this functions as a model and qualifiers are needed for a new level of understanding (disclosure)
Eg model= God is good model + qualifier= God is infinitely good
Adds to Aquinas’ argument, giving more information, setting God apart from humans – avoiding anthropomorphism

4 of 7

Purpose of Aquinas was to make the meaningfulness of religious language obvious and clear by pointing out its similarity to everyday language not by stipulating some exact mathematical relationship
Aquinas simply did not intend this theory of meaning to be used as a means of arriving at information about God, his character, perfections or attributes
Aquinas’ aim was to explain how predicates applied to God have meaning

5 of 7

Dr Fry:
- There is no middle way between univocal and equivocal language
Ferre:
- Analogy of proportion is unable to provide any real understanding of God as this kind of analogy has two unknowns (God’s wisdom and Gods’ infinite nature)- no empirical evidence
- Analogy of attribution does not work because whilst we may think of God as the cause of a property in his creatures it does not force us to have to think of God himself possessing such qualities
- Analogy of attribution is ‘excessively permissible' Eg God is sweet smelling
Colin Brown:
- Maintains that analogy needs to be linked to religious experience
- Religious experience is an empirical grounding
- But religious experiences are described as ineffable

6 of 7

7 of 7