Aquinas' Analogy religious language

can anybody explain to me what Aquinas means when he talks about analogy of proportion and analogy of attribution in simple terms I'm having difficulty understanding it.
thanks.

hope my notes help...
Aquinas- used analogies. He starts from a position of profound belief in God.
Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language:


Univocal language-
words are used to mean the same things in all situations e.g. blackboard


Equivocal
language- words are used to mean different things in different contexts
e.g. gay

Aquinas
said we can’t use univocal language to talk about God as this would be us using
the word good for example in the same way as we do to humans as we do for God. This
can’t be done because God is truly good, therefore the good attributed to him can’t
be connected with/inline with the human good as humans are sinful.

Aquinas also said that we can’t use Equivocal language to
talk about God because this means that when we say God is Good, we mean it in a
totally different way to humans- this then makes God unknowable and
impersonal.

Aquinas believed that there is a middle way- this being talking
about God through analogy.

Aquinas talked about two different types of analogy:

1.
Analogy of attribution- Aquinas believed that it is possible to
work out the nature of God by examining his creation. The analogy of attribution
Aquinas takes as his starting point the idea that God is the source of all
things in the universe and that God is perfect. He then says that because all
people are made in the image of God and live in the world God created-it means
that all beings imitate God according to their mode of existence.

Aquinas uses the example of the health of a
bull from examining its urine. The health of the pull is within the bull itself
(like the goodness of god is completely in god himself) but the urine does reveal
this healthiness to an extent (just like the creation of the world reveals God’s
goodness to an extent). This shows an order
of reference- meaning the qualities apply to god first and foremost and
then to us and the world (can link to Aquinas ideas in the attributes section
on omnipotence where Aquinas says God is the primary source of power, we are
the secondary sources). So, we have qualities
God has because he is our creator analogically, but God has them perfectly.


·
Aquinas says that what it means for God to be
good is unclear, but we can deduce from the world that God is good.

·
It is important to remember that Aquinas is not talking
about good in a human, moral sense as God is infallible (incapable of making
mistake- therefore cannot be said to be the same good as human good because as
said in the weaknesses of univocal language human good is one that is corrupted
to an extent with sin)

·
God has the quality of being Good, whatever that
means for him.

2. The analogy of proportion- when we say
something is a good car, we are comparing it against what we deem to be a good
car. This is the same for a person, what we deem to be a good person is one who
shows ideals of what a good person is supposed to be.

Because God is eternal and unchanging- God
being good is God being God. Unlike humans we have nothing to compare God to-
humans can be said to be god or not depending on how they compare to others. But
as there are no other designers or creators’ god’s goodness is whatever it
means for God to be God.

The analogy of proportion means that when
we say humans are good because they are created by God and therefore God is
good as he has created us in this way- he need to not just leave this definition
of gods goodness there- instead we need to acknowledge that gods goodness is go
much greater than ours.

Hick puts this idea of portion in a successful example- a man
and women in a relationship can both be faithful to each other, whilst also their
dog is faithful- the levels of faithful are different yet there is a
recognisable similarity or analogy- otherwise we would not think of the dog as
faithful.

Therefore, we think God is loving, good etc
from his work in nature because we can find a similarity between what we
attribute through human interaction as good and loving and that which god has
created in the world (natural theology) but we acknowledge that what we deep good
and loving through human interaction is different to Gods level of good and lovingness-
even though we can’t comprehend his create extent of these characteristics we
still have a pull that he holds them in some way.

The basis idea is that because we are
created in Gods image and likeness, we possess qualities like God, but because
we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportions to
God.

·
So, we possess the qualities of god but in a
lesser proportion.

·
We must extent upwards with language when
talking about god.

hope my notes help...
Aquinas- used analogies. He starts from a position of profound belief in God.
Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language:


Univocal language-
words are used to mean the same things in all situations e.g. blackboard


Equivocal
language- words are used to mean different things in different contexts
e.g. gay

Aquinas
said we can’t use univocal language to talk about God as this would be us using
the word good for example in the same way as we do to humans as we do for God. This
can’t be done because God is truly good, therefore the good attributed to him can’t
be connected with/inline with the human good as humans are sinful.

Aquinas also said that we can’t use Equivocal language to
talk about God because this means that when we say God is Good, we mean it in a
totally different way to humans- this then makes God unknowable and
impersonal.

Aquinas believed that there is a middle way- this being talking
about God through analogy.

Aquinas talked about two different types of analogy:

1.
Analogy of attribution- Aquinas believed that it is possible to
work out the nature of God by examining his creation. The analogy of attribution
Aquinas takes as his starting point the idea that God is the source of all
things in the universe and that God is perfect. He then says that because all
people are made in the image of God and live in the world God created-it means
that all beings imitate God according to their mode of existence.

Aquinas uses the example of the health of a
bull from examining its urine. The health of the pull is within the bull itself
(like the goodness of god is completely in god himself) but the urine does reveal
this healthiness to an extent (just like the creation of the world reveals God’s
goodness to an extent). This shows an order
of reference- meaning the qualities apply to god first and foremost and
then to us and the world (can link to Aquinas ideas in the attributes section
on omnipotence where Aquinas says God is the primary source of power, we are
the secondary sources). So, we have qualities
God has because he is our creator analogically, but God has them perfectly.


·
Aquinas says that what it means for God to be
good is unclear, but we can deduce from the world that God is good.

·
It is important to remember that Aquinas is not talking
about good in a human, moral sense as God is infallible (incapable of making
mistake- therefore cannot be said to be the same good as human good because as
said in the weaknesses of univocal language human good is one that is corrupted
to an extent with sin)

·
God has the quality of being Good, whatever that
means for him.

2. The analogy of proportion- when we say
something is a good car, we are comparing it against what we deem to be a good
car. This is the same for a person, what we deem to be a good person is one who
shows ideals of what a good person is supposed to be.

Because God is eternal and unchanging- God
being good is God being God. Unlike humans we have nothing to compare God to-
humans can be said to be god or not depending on how they compare to others. But
as there are no other designers or creators’ god’s goodness is whatever it
means for God to be God.

The analogy of proportion means that when
we say humans are good because they are created by God and therefore God is
good as he has created us in this way- he need to not just leave this definition
of gods goodness there- instead we need to acknowledge that gods goodness is go
much greater than ours.

Hick puts this idea of portion in a successful example- a man
and women in a relationship can both be faithful to each other, whilst also their
dog is faithful- the levels of faithful are different yet there is a
recognisable similarity or analogy- otherwise we would not think of the dog as
faithful.

Therefore, we think God is loving, good etc
from his work in nature because we can find a similarity between what we
attribute through human interaction as good and loving and that which god has
created in the world (natural theology) but we acknowledge that what we deep good
and loving through human interaction is different to Gods level of good and lovingness-
even though we can’t comprehend his create extent of these characteristics we
still have a pull that he holds them in some way.

The basis idea is that because we are
created in Gods image and likeness, we possess qualities like God, but because
we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportions to
God.

·
So, we possess the qualities of god but in a
lesser proportion.

·
We must extent upwards with language when
talking about god.

Erm, I don't see any problem with what they did. Sit back and relax. Their notes are helping other people out. If you don't like it then skrr from this thread.

Resurrecting old threads is warned against in the site rules. Just make a new one.

What on earth? You cant actually be serious? What a rubbish rule?!!!

You can check for yourself.

Great!