Philosophy, by M Hawk

575 Words3 Pages
Evaluate the claim that analogy can be used to express the human understanding of God. [35] It can be claimed that one as a human can never truly understand God, as he is transcendent, and as human we do not have a high enough level of knowledge to understand him. This is why one would use analogy to try and understand God and his actions. An analogy is using examples of things we do understand to explain something we don’t understand. For example, Plato uses his analogy of the cave to explain the world in comparison to the world of the forms. This is him using something we do understand, being a cave with prisoners, to explain something we don’t understand, like the greatness and complicity of the world of the forms. In this way, it could be said that God is so complicated and great, that we as humans can only understand him through analogy. There could be considered two types of analogy – Attribution and Proportion – That can help humans to understand God in any way. Brian Davies explained the analogy of attribution through the analogy of the baker. He said that the baker is good and the bread he makes is good, but because the bread is soft and tasty doesn’t mean that the baker is soft and tasty. Attribution is to say that, in the context of God, that God can be described as good, and so can man, but it does not mean that their goodness is the same. Therefore, God is good because he made good humans. This therefore shows that God can be good, but he is on a different level of goodness, just as the baker and the bread are. This therefore shows that humans can understand goodness through the goodness of man, but we cannot understand the goodness of God completely without him showing us his goodness directly. This therefore, is why analogy would be needed to show any understanding of Gods goodness. One could also say that God only simply gave us goodness, in the
Open Document