diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'sum-chap-3.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | sum-chap-3.tex | 4 |
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/sum-chap-3.tex b/sum-chap-3.tex index 52aefc3..54fdc84 100644 --- a/sum-chap-3.tex +++ b/sum-chap-3.tex @@ -38,5 +38,9 @@ It has traditionally been held that God has revealed Himself in a way suitable f We cannot speak \emph{univocally} (in exactly the same sense) about God and humans, because we cannot reduce God to the human. On the other hand, speaking \emph{equivocally} (in a completely different sense) about God we would risk agnosticism, communicating no real knowledge of God any more. \index{Analogy}Analogy seeks a middle way between the two. There is a difference between an \index{Analogy!Analogia entis}analogy of being, between Creator and creation (more related to general revelation) and an \index{Analogy!Analogia fidei}analogy of faith which reflects on special revelation. The two approaches can complement each other. Analogy always has a positive and a negative aspect: it mentions a likeness and a dissimilarity. +\question{Is it correct that we can only speak univocally \emph{or} equivocally about God, or is it possible to communicate knowledge of God without analogies at all?} + +\question{Is this a valid argument for \emph{not} speaking equivocally about God? If we agree that not speaking equivocally about God and creatures is a pitfall we must avoid, shouldn't we then simply accept that we \emph{cannot} communicate knowledge of God?} + \index{Metaphor}Metaphors are extensively used to communicate knowledge of God, but it is inherent to metaphors that they can be ambiguous. |