Evaluate the Claim That Analogy Can Be Used to Express the Human Understanding of God.

Q: EVALUATE THE CLAIM THAT ANALOGY CAN BE USED TO EXPRESS THE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING OF GOD.  (35 MARKS)        

It has been said that analogy, which is when language is used to inspire a sense of the meaning intended rather than being used with a literal intention, can be used to express human understanding of God.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that we can never speak about God without using everyday language, as this is all we have. We are imperfect beings using imperfect language to describe a perfect God. Aquinas argued that God is pure actuality and that humans, and the rest of creation, are potentially. God is outside of time and space, and is purely simple. Since God is simple, immutable, and unchangeable and so on, God is beyond human. Therefore when describing God with simple words, such as good, loving, kind etc. we must add ‘beyond’ (e.g. God is beyond loving.), showing a non-believer we can understand God,  even though he is  outside of our understanding as humans, through using the word beyond.

Aquinas believed that there are positive things which can be said about God, thus following Aristotle in making use of three forms of language; the first being equivocal language,  which is when the meaning of a word depends upon its context. For example a fruit bat/cricket bat, without the ‘fruit’ or ‘cricket’ we would not know which bat one is talking about. This use of language makes no connection between contexts, both bats above are completely different, and not similar in anyway. However, Aquinas argued that equivocal language could not be applied to God, since it limits its subject, and God cannot be limited, due to being beyond humans, suggesting we could not use it to express our understanding of God. The next form is univocal language; this is when a word means the same in different situations, (e.g. green grass/ green hat.) This use of language is finite, and as such limits its subject. He also argued that univocal language was equally inapplicable; it would communicate nothing about God because there is no connection between the language users, making it near impossible for us to express our understanding of God. The final form is known as analogical language. This is when the meaning of a word in one context is pointed to by its meaning in another, (for example, Miss Keane is good/ God is good), saying ‘Miss Keane is good’ points one to an understanding, as we take some sort of meaning of God from the knowledge we already have of the adjective ‘good’.  This used of language in one context is understood, and therefore it points on its meaning within other context, suggesting we as humans can understand God in this manner, and thus use it to express our understanding of God. Aquinas therefore argued that religious language should be analogical. He accordingly distinguished between the two types of analogical language, attribution, which is when we ascribe a quality to one thinks because it is caused by another, (e.g. human wisdom is a reflection of divine wisdom) and proportion, which is when we ascribe a quality to one thing because it points towards another thing which has that quality (e.g. human love points beyond itself to divine love), showing humans can express their understanding of God, by using qualities we already know the meaning of.