greenpen
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
Lu-x
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
(Original post by greenpen)
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.
Analogy of proportionality - the view that all good qualities belong infinitely to God and, in proportion, to humans too. A plant has a life, an human has life, God has life - there is a proportionate relationship between each life in the list, with God's being the greatest and the plants being a bit rubbish . This helps us to understand a bit about God, though we can never really understand him fully.

Analogy of attribution - the view that God is the cause of all good things in humans is God. Therefore, God's attributes are simply on a higher level of our own. Hick gave examples of 'upwards' analogy of attribution, such as speaking of a dog's faithfulness and then going upwards to human faith in God.

I reckon that they are quite similar, but if you just memorize PROPORTION and PLANT, and then ATTRIBUTION with A DOG (very lame, I know) then you should be able to remember the meaning of each in an exam? Personally, I hate analogy, I'm leaving it out of my revision
2
reply
lottie123
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
These are the notes that I have on it for revision...sorry if it's a little long winded!!

* Aquinas rejects the use of univocal and eqivocal language to talk about God; instead he uses analogy which is basically a comparison between two things in which the first simpler thing is used to explain the second more complex thing which is in some way similar. This means analogy relies on the fact there is some point of comparison which links the two things in the analogy.
* Analogy can be used to describe God because he is revealed through Creation meaning there is some point of comparison between God and the world.

Analogy of Attribution
* This means words such as just and good may be applied to God as well as human beings. When we use these words we are saying that a person has the quality of being good/just.
* Because God created the world, He is revealed through it and this gives a point of comparison. We can know what it is for a person to be good or wise and from the way God is revealed in the world we can use these words to describe Him.
* What it means for God to be good is unclear but we deduce from the world that God is good.
* Aquinas uses the analogy, 'The medicine is healthy'; 'The urine is healthy'
The medicine being healthy is the cause of the urine being healthy. Healthy is used in similar but not quite the same way in both cases. Urine is only healthy as the health came from the medicine, while the medicine is healthy in itself.
* So, if we say, 'God is good'; 'The Pope is good', good is being used in similar senses. Because we can see goodness in human beings this means that God is the source of goodness as He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
* Important to remember that Aquinas is not talking about good in a human, moral sense as God is infallible. God has the quality of being good, whatever that means for Him.

Analogy of Proportion
* If you say a car is good you are saying that the car measures up to the idea of what a good car should be like.
* If you say someone is a good person, the word good means the person somehow matches certain ideals of what a good person is.
* In the statement, 'God is good', good is used to indicate that God measures up to what it is for God to be good.
* Aquinas describes God as being perfectly good as He is eternal and unchangeable. Aquinas was not talking about moral goodness. Rather he was saying that God is good as He lives upto what He should be.
* It also explains how a word refers to the quality the thing possesses in proportion to the kind of reality it possesses - humans are loyal in proportion to the loyalty of a human being.
One can understand that God is omnipotent because we have the human idea of power. God is proportionally more powerful than humans so although we can not completely understand the idea of God's omnipotence we can have an insight into God's power because of our human experience of power.
5
reply
greenpen
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#4
WOW!
Thanks for both of your help, i have a better understanding thanks!
0
reply
Triciatrish
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Thanks very much good to know others are following this pathway
0
reply
Triciatrish
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Thanks for your help
0
reply
anna myerscough
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
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.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by anna myerscough)
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.
Why are you resurrecting years-old threads?!
0
reply
TylerCa
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 months ago
#9
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.
0
reply
TylerCa
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 months ago
#10
Thanks!
(Original post by anna myerscough)
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.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 months ago
#11
(Original post by TylerCa)
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.
0
reply
TylerCa
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 months ago
#12
What on earth? You cant actually be serious? What a rubbish rule?!!!
(Original post by gjd800)
Resurrecting old threads is warned against in the site rules. Just make a new one.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 10 months ago
#13
(Original post by TylerCa)
What on earth? You cant actually be serious? What a rubbish rule?!!!
You can check for yourself.
0
reply
TylerCa
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 months ago
#14
Great!
(Original post by gjd800)
You can check for yourself.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 months ago
#15
(Original post by TylerCa)
Great!
It is section 4 of the rules, fyi.
0
reply
rsstudent123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 months ago
#16
attribution is a causal relationship between the two things being described, for example, a warm jumper is described as warm as that’s the effect it has on the person proportionality refers to objects different in proportion - for example, a fast cat is game st compared to other cats, but not in the same proportion to a ‘fast’ car. you must compare it with other cars. hope this helps
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you do not get the A-level grades you want this summer, what is your likely next step?

Take autumn exams (177)
46.34%
Take exams next summer (56)
14.66%
Change uni choice through clearing (90)
23.56%
Apply to uni next year instead (41)
10.73%
I'm not applying to university (18)
4.71%

Watched Threads

View All