Religious Language II
“Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes no positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion”
Introduction
Define: Analogical language- Aquinas argues that the when terms are used to
describe God and his attributes, those terms are used analogously. Thus, when
the predicate “good” is applied to God, it doesn't pick out a property that God
has. Owing to divine simplicity, God does not have properties.
Importance: Perhaps Aquinas’ thinking on analogy should be totally dismissed if
it contributes nothing positive to the philosophy of religion.
Scholars: Aquinas, Swinburne
Conclusion: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes a partial
positive contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Paragraph 1
Point: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes a partial positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Argument: A cognitive approach to religious language, such as Aquinas thinking
on analogy, has been the more popular approach among religious believers. The
cognitive approach dictates that when Christians make assertions about their
faith, they usually mean to imply that they are referring to facts. When they
speak of the existence and the love of God, they usually intend to refer to a real
being who has a love for humanity that is in some ways comparable to, although
also much greater than, the love that humans can experience in this world.
Aquinas argued that there are three types of language:
Univocal: words that have one objective meaning. cat always means cat.
Equivocal: words with subjective meanings or meanings based on context. When
I say I love my cat I do not mean romantically. Analogical: language used to
make an analogy.
Aquinas view of religious language as analogy is still very popular within
Christianity, especially within the Catholic tradition. Many Christians find it
helpful to think of the truth-claims of Christianity as cognitive, with real factual
content, even if in this life our finite minds cannot understand or access those
facts.
Counterargument: Whether or not religious believers think that their
assertions are about facts, the challenge remains for them to provide evidence of
the truth of what they are saying.
Paragraph 2
Point: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes no positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion.
, Argument: Aquinas thought that it was important when we speak of God to
remember that we are using analogy of attribution. When we speak of God as
loving, for example, we should think about the causal relationship here and
realise that God does not only display love but is the cause of all love. Aquinas
made the distinction between God being good, wise and loving in his essence,
whereas everything else is good or wise or loving because it participates in the
essence of God.
Counterargument: Aquinas rejects the literal meaning of words as being
applicable to God. Richard Swinburne has suggested that sometimes words could
be used univocally to talk about God. For example, if God is good, this could be
interpreted to mean that God is good just as human beings can be, but God is
good to a greater degree.
Some philosophers have pointed out that while analogy may tell us that God has
a certain quality like ‘being just’, we cannot know what this is for God. If we
cannot know what God being just means, does this suggest that ‘God being just’
is actually meaningless?
Paragraph 3
Point: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes a partial positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Argument: Aquinas argued for two types of analogy- Analogy of Attribution: The
idea that we can say something about the author or maker from the product
created. The analogy of attribution states that our goodness comes directly from
God. Analogy of Proportion: To understand the nature of God, it is best to use the
analogy of proportion. This states that there is a proportionate relationship
between all things. For example, the following statements are all proportionate
to one another: God has life, Humans have life, Plants have life.
We understand plants as being ‘alive’ in a sense, but that doesn’t compare to
how we define ourselves as alive. So, God’s life is greater than ours; all things
must be understood in proportion to one another.
Counterargument: For Aquinas, the revelation of God to individuals through
religious experience, through the words of the Bible and the teachings of the
church, provided sufficient evidence to support claims such as ‘God loves us'.
Philosophers today are likely to argue that we need more than just someone's
claim that God revealed truths to them, and that we would not accept other
truth-claims, such as those of science, on the basis of a reported vision or holy
text.
“Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes no positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion”
Introduction
Define: Analogical language- Aquinas argues that the when terms are used to
describe God and his attributes, those terms are used analogously. Thus, when
the predicate “good” is applied to God, it doesn't pick out a property that God
has. Owing to divine simplicity, God does not have properties.
Importance: Perhaps Aquinas’ thinking on analogy should be totally dismissed if
it contributes nothing positive to the philosophy of religion.
Scholars: Aquinas, Swinburne
Conclusion: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes a partial
positive contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Paragraph 1
Point: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes a partial positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Argument: A cognitive approach to religious language, such as Aquinas thinking
on analogy, has been the more popular approach among religious believers. The
cognitive approach dictates that when Christians make assertions about their
faith, they usually mean to imply that they are referring to facts. When they
speak of the existence and the love of God, they usually intend to refer to a real
being who has a love for humanity that is in some ways comparable to, although
also much greater than, the love that humans can experience in this world.
Aquinas argued that there are three types of language:
Univocal: words that have one objective meaning. cat always means cat.
Equivocal: words with subjective meanings or meanings based on context. When
I say I love my cat I do not mean romantically. Analogical: language used to
make an analogy.
Aquinas view of religious language as analogy is still very popular within
Christianity, especially within the Catholic tradition. Many Christians find it
helpful to think of the truth-claims of Christianity as cognitive, with real factual
content, even if in this life our finite minds cannot understand or access those
facts.
Counterargument: Whether or not religious believers think that their
assertions are about facts, the challenge remains for them to provide evidence of
the truth of what they are saying.
Paragraph 2
Point: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes no positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion.
, Argument: Aquinas thought that it was important when we speak of God to
remember that we are using analogy of attribution. When we speak of God as
loving, for example, we should think about the causal relationship here and
realise that God does not only display love but is the cause of all love. Aquinas
made the distinction between God being good, wise and loving in his essence,
whereas everything else is good or wise or loving because it participates in the
essence of God.
Counterargument: Aquinas rejects the literal meaning of words as being
applicable to God. Richard Swinburne has suggested that sometimes words could
be used univocally to talk about God. For example, if God is good, this could be
interpreted to mean that God is good just as human beings can be, but God is
good to a greater degree.
Some philosophers have pointed out that while analogy may tell us that God has
a certain quality like ‘being just’, we cannot know what this is for God. If we
cannot know what God being just means, does this suggest that ‘God being just’
is actually meaningless?
Paragraph 3
Point: Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language makes a partial positive
contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Argument: Aquinas argued for two types of analogy- Analogy of Attribution: The
idea that we can say something about the author or maker from the product
created. The analogy of attribution states that our goodness comes directly from
God. Analogy of Proportion: To understand the nature of God, it is best to use the
analogy of proportion. This states that there is a proportionate relationship
between all things. For example, the following statements are all proportionate
to one another: God has life, Humans have life, Plants have life.
We understand plants as being ‘alive’ in a sense, but that doesn’t compare to
how we define ourselves as alive. So, God’s life is greater than ours; all things
must be understood in proportion to one another.
Counterargument: For Aquinas, the revelation of God to individuals through
religious experience, through the words of the Bible and the teachings of the
church, provided sufficient evidence to support claims such as ‘God loves us'.
Philosophers today are likely to argue that we need more than just someone's
claim that God revealed truths to them, and that we would not accept other
truth-claims, such as those of science, on the basis of a reported vision or holy
text.
