If moral experience grounds knowledge of divine attributes without relying on weak natural analogy, the claim that God's nature is inexplicable is too broad and must be restricted to metaphysical rather than moral characterization.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
metaphysical characterization(as used in metaphysics and philosophy of religion)
Describing what something fundamentally *is* in terms of its deepest nature—for example, saying God is eternal, infinite, or immaterial, rather than what God does or what qualities God has.
moral characterization(as used in ethics and philosophy of religion)
Describing something based on its ethical qualities or what it reveals about right and wrong—for example, saying God is just, merciful, or loving.
moral experience(as used in epistemology and ethics)
The direct, personal encounters we have with right and wrong—like feeling guilt, compassion, or the weight of a difficult ethical choice—rather than just thinking about morality abstractly.
natural analogy(as used in philosophy of religion)
A method of understanding something unfamiliar (like God) by comparing it to similar things we already know from the natural world, the way we might compare God's power to human strength.
weak analogy(as used in logic and philosophy of religion)
A comparison that doesn't work very well because the two things being compared are too different—for example, comparing God to a human builder doesn't capture God's infinite nature.