God cannot love, so the word love cannot be applied.

God’s love is different from human love, love is used equivocally.

Human language applied to god is mea ingless.

God’s love is the same as human love, love is used univocally.

Implies god cannot be known.

Does not allow us to say anything meaningful about god.

Raises god to a human level, is anthropomorphic.

Lowers god to a human level, is anthropomorphic.

Doesn’t allow us to know god as it says he can’t be understood in a human context, implying he is unknowable.

Lowers god to a human level and is anthropomorphic.

Limits god and is insulting.

God is so vastly different to what we know that human terms serve only to limit him, instead of saying what he is, we should say what he is not.

Since god created the universe, there must be a link between his attributes and human attributes. The attributes are being used as analogies.

The baker is good’ and ‘the bread is good’ give the same quality to two different things, by establishing what good means in terms of the bread, we can understand something of what it means in terms of the baker. If we can understand what good means for humans, we can understand something of what it means for god.

Applies to every culture and time.

Allows you to speak meaningfully of god.

Doesn’t limit god and allows for a mystical approach.

1. Avoids anthropomorphizing god and tries to come to an understanding of him

If god is beyond description, we end up saying nothing meaningful at all.

Flew- all the negations amount to nothing.

Does not show respect for god.

Contradicts holy scriptures that describe god positively.

Since god created the universe, there must be a link between his attributes and human attributes. The attributes are being used as metaphors.

Since god did not create the universe, there must be a link between his attributes and human attributes. The attributes are being used as analogies.

Since god created the universe, there must be a link between his attributes and human attributes. The attributes are being used as symbols.

Since god created the universe, there must be a link between his attributes and human attributes. The attributes are being used as analogies.

Analogy of redemption

Analogy of attribution

Analogy of proportion

Analogy of attribution

Analogy of proportion

Analogy of position

If god is beyond description, we end up saying nothing meaningful at all

To work, the language we use must be univocal, equivocal and based on factual observation, there must be something in common between human goodness and god’s goodness, but if goodness in god and humans is understood univocally, we have gained nothing.

Anthony flew- all the negatives amount to nothing, so we know nothing of god. 3. It contradicts holy scriptures that describe god positively.

It can be used to prove god is bad, he has what it takes to produce badness in humans

Picks some qualities- does god have evil qualities?

Tells us nothing new about god as it’s based on things already in existence

If god is beyond description, we end up saying nothing meaningful at all

To work, we have to believe that god created the world and made us in his likeness.

The baker is good’ and ‘the bread is good’ give the same quality to two different things, by establishing what good means in terms of the bread, we can understand something of what it means in terms of the baker. If we can understand what good means for humans, we can understand something of what it means for god.

Dogs can love, but in an inferior way to humans- we can make an upward analogy from canine to human love. For god, we can make an upward analogy from human love to god’s love. ‘A human father loves in a way appropriate to human fathers and god loves in a way appropriate to god.’

The wave particle duality of light. Light can be described as both a wave and a particle, in both cases we are stretching the meaning of wave and particle. In the same way, we stretch the meaning of love when talking of god, yet it remains in contact with its original meaning.

Doesn’t go much farther then aquinas, only serves to show that we can and do use analogical language to refer to god.

Provides a convincing argument for the utility of analogy.

Fails completely in showing that analogies are meaningful.

There are levels of reality beyond the empirical and these can be fully understood using analogical language.

There are levels of reality beyond the empirical and these can be fully understood using symbolic language.

There are levels of reality beyond the empirical and these can be partly understood using analogical language.

There are levels of reality beyond the empirical and these can be partly understood using symbolic language.

These levels would have otherwise have been closed and they open dimensions of the soul that correspond to said levels. For example, we may try to account for a work of art via explanation, but this fails to account for the impact it makes.

They are arbitrary representations of something that become associated with the thing they represent, eg. A blue light is the sign of a police car, but the color blue does not carry any meaning of this kind.

They participate in the reality to which they point. Eg. A flag participates in the power of the country it represents as it evokes feelings of pride.

Marx, in his idea of the holy, he spoke of god as numinous, an object outside the self and the soul’s sense of awe and mystery. Tillich thought that symbols pointed to this holy dimension of reality.

Darwin, in his idea of the holy, he spoke of god as numinous, an object outside the self and the soul’s sense of awe and mystery. Tillich thought that symbols pointed to this holy dimension of reality.

Dawkins, in his idea of the holy, he spoke of god as numinous, an object outside the self and the soul’s sense of awe and mystery. Tillich thought that symbols pointed to this holy dimension of reality.

Otto, in his idea of the holy, he spoke of god as numinous, an object outside the self and the soul’s sense of awe and mystery. Tillich thought that symbols pointed to this holy dimension of reality.

Non symbolically as being itself.

Symbolically as a person, if you encounter the holy, you encounter god as being itself.

Cognitive, to talk of him as a person uses person symbolically to denote being itself. God can only be referred to symbolically as his is too powerful to simply be equated to a human.

Realist, to talk of him as a person uses person symbolically to denote being itself. God can only be referred to symbolically as his is too powerful to simply be equated to a human.

Relative, to talk of him as a person uses person symbolically to denote being itself. God can only be referred to symbolically as his is too powerful to simply be equated to a human.

Non Cognitive, to talk of him as a person uses person symbolically to denote being itself. God can only be referred to symbolically as his is too powerful to simply be equated to a human.

Cognitive, to talk of him as a person uses person symbolically to denote being itself. God can only be referred to symbolically as his is too powerful to simply be equated to a human.

To encounter god, this is the real focus of human life and is expressed in concepts like redemption, salvation etc. faith can’t be expressed cognitively as it relates to a non empirical reality.

To encounter god as jesus, this is the real focus of human life and is expressed in concepts like redemption, salvation etc. faith can’t be expressed cognitively as it relates to a non empirical reality.

To encounter god as being itself, this is the real focus of human life and is expressed in concepts like redemption, salvation etc. faith can’t be expressed cognitively as it relates to a non empirical reality.

To encounter god spiritually, this is the real focus of human life and is expressed in concepts like redemption, salvation etc. faith can’t be expressed cognitively as it relates to a non empirical reality.

Alston- symbols are meaningless as we can’t know if they’re true or not.

Hick and Macquarrie argue that there is no difference between signs and symbols, a cloud is both a sign and symbol of rain.

Hume- we can only speak of that which we can encounter in the empirical realm.

The idea that a ‘symbol participates in the reality to which is points’ is unclear, how does a flag participate in the power of a monarch?

If religious language is symbolic, it is meaningless Tillich’s thoughts center around our ‘ultimate concern’ for god, a concept driven by our own psychology, but what basis is there for believing we are describing anything beyond ourselves?

If religious language is symbolic, it is metaphysically true. Tillich’s thoughts center around our ‘ultimate concern’ for god, a concept driven by our own psychology, but what basis is there for believing we are describing anything beyond ourselves?

If religious language is symbolic, it is literally true. Tillich’s thoughts center around our ‘ultimate concern’ for god, a concept driven by our own psychology, but what basis is there for believing we are describing anything beyond ourselves?

If religious language is symbolic, it is not literally true. Tillich’s thoughts center around our ‘ultimate concern’ for god, a concept driven by our own psychology, but what basis is there for believing we are describing anything beyond ourselves?

Indicative- they show us visions of god.

Social- they bind people together.

Communicational- they communicate beliefs literal language can.

Motivational- they inspire people.

God’ has cognitive content and has been reduced to a symbol for human values, if god is just a symbol, it tells us nothing about the being god.

God’ has no cognitive content and has been reduced to a symbol for human values, if god is just a symbol, it tells us nothing about the being god.

Legal judgment. When we think of being subject to the divine judgment of god we are using this as a symbol of the ultimate judgment that we make against ourselves. The idea of god is a symbol of self judgment when we follow the wrong path.

Human judgment. When we think of being subject to the divine judgment of god we are using this as a symbol of the ultimate judgment that we make against ourselves. The idea of god is a symbol of self judgment when we follow the wrong path.

Divine judgment. When we think of being subject to the divine judgment of god we are using this as a symbol of the ultimate judgment that we make against ourselves. The idea of god is a symbol of self judgment when we follow the wrong path.