Here is a quote that uses argument by analogy - a quote that many will disagree with which makes it perfect for checking the logic. Remember gut reaction doesn't count as logic ... the applicable question is "is this a valid application of argument by analogy?" Note that there are deductive arguments that are based on analogy - which is not what we are discussing.
[quote]
2 Peter 1:3–4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may … become partakers of the divine nature.
In other words, the key is affinity with, or closeness; proximity to God. Just as God can be blasphemed, in a lesser but still very real sense, so can His ambassadors and witnesses, who reflect and represent God; therefore, as such, people can scorn and reject and blaspheme them just as they do God.
It seems to straightforwardly follow, then, by analogy, that if a rejection or blasphemy of God can be expressed via an essentially lesser but connected blasphemy of His ambassadors (the lesser, secondary vessel being in close affinity with the primary source), by the same token and principle and logic, conversely, the worship of God can be expressed via an essentially lesser but connected veneration of His ambassadors.
In this manner, the wider application of blasphemy in Scripture to creatures suggests by symmetrical analogy, a wider application of honoring: expressed in veneration of creatures, which is distinct from the adoration that God alone is entitled to, as Creator. The creatures reflect the Creator like the painting reflects the painter, or moonlight, the sunlight that is its source.
Moreover, we see that the Bible refers blasphemy of men almost solely to the most eminent of God’s followers (Paul, Moses, and perfected saints in heaven): and angels even higher in the scale of things. Thus, by analogy, the relatively greater veneration is towards those who have attained a higher holiness and sanctity; hence in the Bible we see a differential “system” of blasphemy / veneration not unlike how the Catholic Church ranks saints, with the greater receiving more veneration.
Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for the Communion of Saints (Dave Armstrong, 2012), 73–74.
The basic format of the argument runs something like:
- Generally A is similar to B at least in regards to a particular attribute (eminent followers of God e.g. Paul, Moses) are similar to God
- The element of similarity is relevant to the conclusion (God's ambassadors and witnesses reflect and represent God himself)
- A proposition is true of A - one can blaspheme against God
- Therefore the proposition is true of B - one can blaspheme against eminent followers of God
This type of logic can be a strong or a weak argument; it is always defeasible reasoning - subject to revision. One evaluates this type of logic by asking the following questions:
- Is the proposition actually true of A?
- Are A and B actually similar in the way claimed?
- Are there important dissimilarities between A and B?
- Can you think of a case C which is also similar to A in this particular aspect of which the proposition is not true?
Right to life literature is frequently a source of this style of argumentation - both good and bad examples - but rarely explicitly identified as an argument by analogy as it is here.
If you're interested in exploring this topic further see Argumentation Schemes by Douglas Walton, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno.
