Canine theology

In Western culture, the dog is often described as “man’s best friend,” and in Western art, the dog is often used as a symbol for faithfulness.  Suppose, then, that we compare the Catholic faith to a healthy dog.  The analogy might be useful for understanding how other religions appear from the point of view of traditional Catholic theology.  Perhaps non-Catholics will not be amused by the comparisons to follow.  But dog lovers may appreciate them.

If Catholicism is like a healthy dog, then Eastern Orthodoxy -- which has valid priestly orders and thus the Eucharist, but which lacks the papacy and rejects the filioque -- might be compared to a dog whose tail has been lopped off.  Protestantism, which lacks not only the papacy, but any valid priestly orders and thus the Eucharist, and departs from Catholicism in many others ways too, is like a dog which has had both its tail and one leg lopped off.   Judaism, which lacks the New Testament, Trinitarianism, belief in the Incarnation, and the rest of distinctively Christian doctrine, but does have a genuinely revealed source of theological knowledge in the Old Testament, is like a dog missing yet another leg.  Religions which at least understand God to be the uncaused cause of the world but which lack any genuine special revelation -- Islam, purely philosophical brands of theism, and arguably the more theistic versions of Hinduism -- are like a dog missing its tail and having only one leg.  (Though insofar as Islam has derived some of its claims about God from Christianity and Judaism, perhaps we can speak in its case of one and a half legs.)

Pantheistic versions of Hinduism, other versions of pantheism, and perhaps Taoism and Confucianism, are on this analogy like a tailless, legless dog.  Agnosticism, perhaps, is like the same dog but with cancer.  Atheism is like the same dog but dead.  Eliminative materialism -- which not only denies any sort of theism or pantheism, but also that there is any such thing as mind, will, or moral value even in the case of human beings, and thus denies that even the image of God exists anywhere in reality -- is like the corpse of that dog after it has been shoved into a wood chipper, like Steve Buscemi in Fargo. 

Where does polytheism fit into this analogy?  That depends.  If it’s a brand of polytheism which affirms the existence of a divine uncaused cause of everything other than himself, but which also claims that there are various lower-case-“g” gods running around… that’s like a dog with fleas.  If it’s a brand of polytheism which denies that there is any such uncaused cause, or even any necessary being with which it identifies the world (as in pantheism)… that’s no dog at all, but just a bunch of fleas. 

Hmm, dogs with fleas, mutilated dogs, cancerous dogs, dead dogs, dogs in wood chippers -- I guess I’ve also offended the dog lovers after all.  Ah well…

Anyway, the point of the analogy, I should make clear, is to represent different levels of knowledge of the divine nature and other kinds of theological knowledge.  I don’t claim for it any relevance at all to the question of whether and how anyone attains salvation.  That’s another issue entirely.  (Perhaps I’d need to use a somewhat different analogy in order to address the question of salvation.  Make the dog a St. Bernard, complete with brandy barrel?)

One application of the analogy is this.  Some who commented on my recent post on the reference of the word “God” seem extremely reluctant to admit that non-Trinitarians can be said genuinely even to refer to the true God when they use that word.  They seem to think it’s an all-or-nothing affair -- either you are talking about the true God with complete knowledge of his nature and perfect accuracy, or you are not even talking about him at all.  That’s like saying that you’ve either got a perfectly healthy and complete dog, or you’ve got no dog at all. 

As I keep pointing out, the critics don’t take this view consistently.  (For example, for some reason, though they’ll allow that Jews and even some pagan philosophers successfully refer to the true God, they deny that Muslims do.)  And as I also keep pointing out, if they were consistent, then every single error that even a non-heretical Christian makes about the divine nature would undermine the possibility of successfully referring to God.  (Would they say that even the Eastern Orthodox fail to refer to the true God, on the grounds that they reject the filioque?)  As I also keep having to point out, the question has absolutely nothing to do with whether non-Christians can be saved, with whether other religions exhibit grave moral defects, and so on.  (Successfully referring to God does not entail getting oneself right with Him.)

A dog that is missing a leg or three is seriously defective, but it’s still a dog.  Similarly, a conception of God which is seriously defective does not, merely for that reason, fail even to be a conception of God at all.  Moreover, a dog which is missing all or almost all of its legs is in much worse shape than a dog which is only missing its tail or one leg.  Similarly, to say that an imperfect conception of God can still be a conception of God is by no means to say that every conception is as good as any other.  Some conceptions have, you might say, a leg up on the rest…