1. By the end of today’s lesson you will
Understand the concept of religious language as non-cognitive and analogical.
Be able to explain Aquinas’ ‘analogy of attribution’ and ‘analogy of proportion’.
Have evaluated whether Aquinas’ concept of analogy solves the inherent problems of religious language.

2. Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 4: Religious Language
AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
AO2 – Analysis and Evaluation
C: Religious language as non-cognitive and analogical:
Proportion and attribution (St Thomas Aquinas) and …
… qualifier and disclosure (Ian Ramsey).
Challenges including how far analogies can give meaningful insights into religious language. A consideration of how these two views (Aquinas/Ramsey) can be used to help understand religious teachings.
The solutions presented by religious philosophers for the inherent problems of using religious language.

3. Aquinas’ View on Religious Language
Rejected the Via Negativa.
Using univocal or equivocal language to talk about God creates problems for the theist.
Solution: We CAN talk about God by using ANALOGY.

4. Why did Aquinas reject the Via Negativa?
It does not say enough about what God is.
E.g. When believers say “the living God”, they mean more than “God is not dead”.
What does the believer mean?

5. Univocal Language The same word is used with exactly the same meaning.
The word means the same in different contexts/situations.

6. Examples of Univocal Language:
City – Paris is a city. Pisa is a city.
Green – Green grass. Green hat.

7. Problems of using univocal language to talk about God:
Aquinas argued that univocal language does not show the distinction between humans and God.
E.g. “love”
“God is loving” and “Yasemin is loving” …
If “love” means exactly the same, God is not differentiated from humans and we fall into the trap of anthropomorphism.

8. Equivocal Language
The same word is used with a different meaning or it is ambiguous.
The meaning of the word depends on the context.

9. Examples of Equivocal Language
Bat

10. Glasses

11. Post
Post = after

12. An advantage of using equivocal language to talk about God:
It stresses the distinctiveness of God …
“God is loving” and “Yasemin is loving” – equivocally ‘love’ has different meanings, thus anthropomorphism is avoided.
However ….

13. Problems with using equivocal language to talk about God:
If God is so different from humans, it would be impossible to understand God.
If a word has different meanings, what do we mean when that word is applied to God?
We know what human love is like, but if God’s love is entirely different we wouldn’t be able to say anything meaningful about it.
Aquinas said of equivocal language that “it follows that from creatures nothing could be known or demonstrated about God at all.” (Summa Theologica)

14. Analogical Language
In a compromise between the two positions of univocal and equivocal language, Aquinas said that we can speak about God using analogy.

15. What is an analogy?
Read the definition of ‘analogy’ and fill in the missing words.
An analogy involves making a comparison between two (or more)things. One is familiar and helps us to understand the second unfamiliar thing. They have similar meanings or something in common, but are not exactly the same.
“Analogies are proportional similarities which also acknowledge dissimilar features.” (D. Burrell)

16. Analogy
Analogies rely on the fact that there is some point of comparison which links the two or more things in the analogy.
For Aquinas, analogies may be used to describe God because God is revealed through creation.
God created the world and sustained it and we are made in the image of God, so there is the point of comparison.
Aquinas called this the “gradation to be found in things”.
All goodness and love in humanity came first from God and, therefore, God and humanity are “analogously related” to him.

17. By the end of today’s lesson you will
Understand the concept of religious language as non-cognitive and analogical.
Be able to explain Aquinas’ ‘analogy of attribution’ and ‘analogy of proportion’.
Have evaluated whether Aquinas’ concept of analogy solves the inherent problems of religious language.

18. Analogy
Proportion and Attribution – six monkeys …

19. Six Monkeys Monkey 1 Read the text quietly to yourself.
Annotate/highlight.
Jot down any questions.

20. Monkey 2 In pairs, alternate reading aloud a sentence each.
Ask each other any questions you have.

21. Monkey 3
As a class, read the information aloud.
Questions

22. Monkey 4 The text will now be removed!
Tell to your partner all you can remember.

23. Monkey 5 Look again at the text.
Individually, draw picture notes for the text.
Numbers are acceptable but NO words.

24. Monkey 6 In pairs, decode your visual notes with your partner.
Make amendments where necessary.

25. Monkey 7 Hide the text and pictures!
In silence, individually, answer the questions on analogical language.
Need a hint – look at your pictures (but not the text!)
No cheating!

26. The Questions Explain what Aquinas meant by ‘analogy of proportion’.
Explain what Aquinas meant by ‘analogy of attribution’.
You must include an example from a scholar in your explanation.

27. By the end of today’s lesson you will
Understand the concept of religious language as non-cognitive and analogical.
Be able to explain Aquinas’ ‘analogy of attribution’ and ‘analogy of proportion’.
Have evaluated whether Aquinas’ concept of analogy solves the inherent problems of religious language.

28. Analogy - Evaluation
Does Aquinas’ concept of analogical language solve the inherent problems of religious language?

29. Analogy - Evaluation
If we don’t agree with Aquinas that God created the world (shown in his 5 Ways) and that humans are created in God’s image and likeness (Genesis), it makes no sense to accept the idea that we can work out what God is like by examining his creation.
E.g. Darwin and Dawkins.

30. Analogy - Evaluation Analogy only picks the good qualities.
There is evil in the world – does God possess evil qualities too?

31. Analogy - Evaluation
Many traditional philosophical arguments use analogy – e.g. Paley in the Teleological Argument.

32. Analogy - Evaluation
Analogy does not stand up to the verification principle.

33. Analogy - Evaluation
Analogy tells us nothing new about God, as it is based on things already in existence.
It’s like saying we can work out everything about a car designer from the car that he/she designed.

34. Analogy - Evaluation
Analogy is extremely useful for believers - it can help them make sense of a concept that is beyond human comprehension.

35. Analogy - Evaluation Swinburne – analogy not needed
When we say ‘God is good’ and ‘humans are good’, we may be using ‘good’ to apply to different things, but we are using it to mean the same thing (univocally)

36. Pleanry
Explain ‘analogy’ using these images as prompts:

37. By the end of today’s lesson you will
Understand the concept of religious language as non-cognitive and analogical.
Be able to explain Aquinas’ ‘analogy of attribution’ and ‘analogy of proportion’.
Have evaluated whether Aquinas’ concept of analogy solves the inherent problems of religious language.

38. By the end of today’s lesson you will
Understand Ramsey’s development of analogy and how one can achieve ‘disclosure’ about God through using ‘qualifiers’ in statements about God.
Have evaluated whether Ramsey’s concept of analogy solves the inherent problems of religious language.

39. Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 4: Religious Language
AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
AO2 – Analysis and Evaluation
C: Religious language as non-cognitive and analogical:
Proportion and attribution (St Thomas Aquinas) and …
… qualifier and disclosure (Ian Ramsey).
Challenges including how far analogies can give meaningful insights into religious language. A consideration of how these two views (Aquinas/Ramsey) can be used to help understand religious teachings.
The solutions presented by religious philosophers for the inherent problems of using religious language.

40. Ian Ramsey
Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Oxford
Became Bishop of Durham in 1966
Book: Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases (1957)

41. Models
A form of analogy – an image or concept taken from everyday experience to express something about God.
Abstract models – e.g. wisdom, goodness.
Think of another abstract model.
Personal models – e.g. King, Shepherd
Think of another personal model.

42. Models “God is good” – model = GOOD.
Our human understanding of ‘good’ is a model for understanding God’s goodness.
“God is a designer” – What is the model here?
Connect to the teleological argument – we understand what is meant by ‘design’ on a human level so this models the idea of God being the designer of the world.

43. Qualifiers Qualifiers add something to the familiar concept.
Models have to be adapted, or qualified to lead us to an understanding of God.
E.g. “God is good” can be qualified by saying, “God is infinitely good.”
This enables us to think of God’s goodness in greater depth until we have an insight into God’s goodness.

44. Qualifiers We then respond to this insight with awe and wonder.
Ramsey maintained that, accompanied by the qualifier, the model lights up the nature of God and evokes a disclosure of God’s goodness leading to commitment, worship and adoration.
The qualifier “prescribes a special way of developing these model situations.” (Ramsey, Religious Language, p62)

45. Models and Qualifiers Qualify these religious phrases: MODEL QUALIFIER
Cause F
Wise I
Good
Creation
E N
Purpose E

46. Models and Qualifiers Qualify these religious statements:
God is loving.
The Lord is my Shepherd.
Jesus is the lamb.
Father God.
King Jesus.

47. Disclosure Read the information on ‘Disclosure’.
How do qualifiers bring disclosure to models?
How does Ramsey’s High Court Judge example illustrate his ideas on religious language?

48. Evaluation
Does Ramsey’s use of analogy solve the inherent problems of religious language?
Record arguments in the table on p31 of your workbook.
Now read the ‘challenges’ on page 34 and ‘How the views of Aquinas and Ramsey can be used to help understand religious teachings’ on page 35 the Eduqas text book.
Add any new arguments to the table (and to the one you completed on Aquinas last lesson – workbook p28)

49. AO2 – Analysis and Evaluation
‘The problems of religious language have been solved by philosophers of religion.’ Evaluate this view. [30]
Task 1: THINK-PAIR-SHARE
Task 2: Read p11-12 (Eduqas book) Add to your arguments
PESEL
Point – make a point
Explain – explain that point
Support – support the point using evidence, reasoning or examples
Evaluate – evaluate the point
Link – link to the question and the paragraph which follows
Important
Evaluate every argument.
E.g. “This is a strong / weak argument because …”
Underline evaluative language
Your final paragraph for AO2 (part b) questions must be your CONCLUSION
Task 3: Write up

50. Plenary
Pick at least 4 words from the selection below & explain them! Blue = 1 point each Red = 2 points each Black = 3 points each
analogy
model
qualifier
Ramsey
attribution
proportion
disclosure
Mr Justice Brown
‘penny drops’