User:Rick Jelliffe/sandbox: Difference between revisions

The analogia entis (Latin for “analogy of being”) is the philosophical claim that for the “being” of created things and the “being” of God, the relationship between the two concepts is one of “analogy“, and the theological ramifications of this.^{[note 1]}

It has been called a guiding principle of thought (or Denkform^{[note 2]}) which synthesizes many disparate themes in Catholic doctrine and theology: that general names or statements about God (such as God “is”, “is infinite”, “is a consuming fire”, “is love”, “is just”, “is our father”, “is patient”) are true but analogies. It is associated with the Latin phrase “maior dissimulitudo in tanta similitudine“:

“For between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them.”

— Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

The modern formulation of the analogia entis emphasizes a cognitive rhythm: the double motion in and beyond:

“What is meant by analogia entis is precisely this: that in the very same act in which the human being comes to intimate God in the likeness of the creature, he also comes to intimate Him as the one who is beyond all likeness.”

— Przywara, Schriften vol 2, p404

Analogia entis gives a name to a broader range of considerations or usages than its strict definition may suggest: theological discussion of the term has been described as “remarkably confused”.^{[note 3]} To expose the different facets of the term, this article treats analogia entis as five related usages:

• cognitive: a non-mystical, fallable human cognitive event involving the characteristic double motion in-and-beyond (distinct from deduction, intuition, instress, etc.);

• rhetorical reflex: that whenever we state something positive about God, we should immediately also state that this is not a limitation on God: so reconciling the cataphatic with the apophatic;

• philosophical: building on the Aristotelean category of metaphor, and Aquinas‘s real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, which contrasts with the unity of essence and existence in God (divine simplicity): God is not a creature and not part of the cosmos but is uniquely behind and above the cosmos, so God’s “being” is infinitely different from our “being”, not an end-point in some continuum of being.

• theological: a symbolic mechanism of general revelation favoured by God in communicating his nature to humans (distinct from, for example, dreams, signs and wonders, angels or syllogisms) and a reliable denkform that underlies much Catholic theology. This usage has been controversial with some Protestant theologians who accuse it of being natural theology.

• religious: the application of analogia entis as life, e.g., as a pattern for biblical interpretation, devotions, and Catholic literature.

There is no single, universally authoritative, and unambiguous doctrine of the analogia entis.

Analogy[edit]

Analogia entis is not per se a simple synonym or theology-speak for analogy, however the term is sometimes inflated as though ‘being’ includes all kinds of predication.

Analogy has the general form A is to B as C is to D:

A : B :: C : D

Some analogies get presented condensed (e.g., into metaphors) by leaving out terms so that one thing is referred to by mentioning another: A is a C. (There is a core case, which other terms relate to in various pros hen ways.^[2]: 119) So “God is Good” is the analogy “the goodness of humans is to their nature as the goodness of God is to his nature.” ^[3]

Analogical reasoning can be distinguished from other modes, such as induction and deduction. Analogical statements can be distinguished from other kinds of statement, such as univocal and equivocal.

Such analogy is asymmetric,^[2]: 119 working in one direction only: the metaphor “God is Father” (i.e., the analogy “God is to us as a human father is to their child“) does not imply “Father is God.” In Christian thought, God has been analogized like many created or experienced things: being, goodness, truth, beauty, just, kind, love, a friend[10], a judge[11], an advocate[12], a fire[13], a hound, a worm[14], divine law[15].

Similarly, an analogical statement does not rule out another statement that would be contradictory if interpreted univocally: “God is Father” does not rule out “God is Mother.” But every analogy breaks down when extended too far.^{[note 4]}

Development[edit]

The term was originally coined around 1350 by Albert Magnus and developed subsequently, notably in the 1920s and 1930s by Jesuit Erich Przywara and German theologians, such as former Jesuit Hans Urs von Balthasar. The concept has a longer history than the term, and drew on commentary by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Aristotle.

Key developments include:

• 4th Century B.C.E.: Aristotle discusses analogy and the pros hen legomena, and distinguished “analogy of proportion” from “analogy of attribution”
• 1st Century: Mark 4:14 notes that indirect…