Analogical Language
Our study of analogical language is a chance to break a mental sweat for God's glory and our sanctification. Words to keep in mind:
Analogia Entis, the example of Chairs, Wholly other, univocal, equivocal, analogical
Today we are going to continue our discussion in the crisis of language and how certain people refer to “God talk.” Last time we talked over the problem of pantheism posed about meaningful talk or discourse about God and we talked about the reaction in the 20th century as they tried to reconstruct the “supernatural.” We ended with the introduction of this concept that God was, “Wholly Other.” This was popularized by the theologian Karl Barth which gave a massive critic against “natural theology” which is an attempt to learn something about God from deductions drawn from nature. Barth was opposed to the intrusion into theology of categories of reason. He is one who as we mentioned before with respect to the Law of non-contradiction, said “until a Christian is able to affirm both poles of a contradiction that person has not reached maturity. “ Sproul would revise this to say that, when a person is able affirm both poles of a contradiction that person has reached insanity. Beside Barth’s antipathy against reason and natural theology he also leveled a radical assault on a concept that was deeply rooted in Christian history. Particularly as it was articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Which concept is called the “analogia entis.” It is a technical term but is critical to this whole discussion. What it means is from Latin to English is ‘analogy of being.’ Barth attacked that by saying their was no such thing as an analogy between God and man because God is ‘Wholly other.’ He completely transcends us. He is totally different from us.
Story about Wholly Other
Let’s illustrate this and what this problem poses to Christianity. Sproul’s favorite story on this happened to him a few years ago when, in Canada, and speaking to a conference there of people who were theologians and opposed to natural theology and rationality. They saw in Sproul’s thinking and theology a heavy influence on Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and general logic and the like. So the group asked a question stating their problem with Sproul’s view. They believed the God was ‘Wholly other.’ (WO) So, Sproul said, if God is WO then how do you know anything at all about him? And this person responded just as Karl Barth had responded that we know God not thru rational speculation or deduction but we know him through revelation. This transcendent God reveal Himself to us. Yes, Sproul said, but how does He do this revealing? And this person said, through history, the Bible and through Christ. Well, Sproul said, I must not be getting my idea across here. 1. You say there is no analogy between this Being and me, so how can he communicate anything to me or reveal to you and me what he is like? For He is totally ‘other’ than us and therefore has no means of contact between us. Because we are utterly dissimilar beings and what possible ground for communication could there be? Finally the light came on for this person. He literally hit his hand on his forehead and said, “hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t have said that He is “totally other.” Yes, that is good for once you say that He can’t communicate then the skeptic can come in and say that your language about God is meaningless and you don‘t know what you are talking about. Because if there is no similarity between you and God then there is no common ground and no possible forum and avenue for communication.
So, from this example we can say, let’s get rid of ‘Wholly other.’
In the movie ‘Cool hand Luke’ we see Newman as the ‘Christ figure’ and at points in the movie we have this expression, “what we have, here, is a failure to communicate.” Which was one of the key lines in the movie.
Some form of common ground
Well, there has to be in communication some form of common ground for people to have discussion. If you go to Russia and you try to communicate over there and you don’t know this language you are going to have a real hard time getting your thoughts and questions out for they won’t get what you are saying. We have to speak the same language. Churchill was to have said, that “the Americans and the British were two people separated by a common language.” Yes, we like the humor but the simple fact is we have to understand what the other is saying.
You have seen maybe millions of chairs in your life. You have come to know what a C-h-a-i-r represents. Plato called it ‘chairness’ that particular experience of all the chairs that you have come in contact with. So all these chairs that you have come in contact with brings you to understand what a chair is. But no two people have had the exact same experience with regard to particular chairs. A different background from one person to another. So when Sproul says chair, each of us is going to have a different picture or understanding of what that “chair” is. This comes from each one’s personal experience. To the extent that we have different thoughts about chairs then we will have some form of miscommunication. Or differing assumptions. But overwhelmingly we have a greater degree of similarity to what chairs are than to our differences. Even though our ideas are not 100% similar. They carefully approximate each other to an extent that it isn’t significant. Or irrelevant to our ability to dialogue and have meaningful conversation.
What does this have to do with God and apologetics?
What of words and language that we might not be familiar with. Such as transcendence or imminence or immanence? If we don’t know these we can’t talk about them. So these are the type of ways that language can break down because of a lack of common understandings. So if God is ‘Wholly other’ then their in NO common ground for understanding.
When we talk of omnipotence we might not be able to get our thinking around all power but we have a limited ability of power so we have some way of imagining what it might be like. When God says that he is all-powerful we can have some idea of this. This wrestling with language is not new to the 20th century.
3 kinds of descriptive language
Univocal is language that describes things between two parties in an exact, one to one, identification. If your understanding of chair is exactly mine to, then we are in univocal communication.
Equivocal is the idea that a term or word changes in the course of the conversation. In logic there is a fallacy of equivocation. You can demonstrate this with a syllogism. Or you can demonstrate it with the changing of the meaning of ‘no cat’ at the start and making it mean a different idea later. The example of ‘bald’ means no hair on the head. But you stretch it out from its original to mean no pizzazz or boring.
Analogical means that a word changes in proportion to beings that are being described. An example would the statement; Do you have a ‘good’ dog? Or Fred is a ‘good’ guy. Each reference to good means a different thing in each context. So when we say the ‘goodness of God.’ We mean that it is like ours but not exactly the same as ours. And we fill in the ideas where they are different. When we say this we are not using ‘good’ in a univocal sense but an analogical sense. And this is made meaningful because God makes us in His image. He gives to us the very grounds and possibility of having meaningful communication between us, as far as this meaning can go.
Words and their meaning:
Imminence; The quality or condition of being about to occur
Immanence; taking place or remaining within, of the Deity - indwelling the universe and time
Transcendent; going beyond ordinary limits, exceeding, supreme, of the Deity - beyond the universe and time
Some extra reading if you want to seek what language is to mean
1. Was Jesus worshiped? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5379
2. Proof-texting perils and determining if a statement is univocal or equivocal. http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/11-12_SG_2007.pdf?docID=2381
3. Probably more than you want but you might want to skim over this. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analogy-medieval/
4.
No comments:
Post a Comment