The longstanding debate over how God-talk is intelligible gravitates around how we should understand the putative answer, “by analogy.” For some contemporary Christian theologians, analogy involves an ontological claim about creaturely and divine being (i.e., an analogy of being). For others, it involves a semantic or syntactical structure that legitimates the linguistic performances associated with analogy (i.e., a grammatical analogy). Still others appeal to faith in God’s self-disclosure in Jesus Christ (i.e., an analogy of faith). Rory Misiewicz argues that all of these approaches fall flat in their explanatory efforts. He draws upon the work of American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce to rethink the relation between God and human beings. He argues that Christian theologians may view that relation as being established by an “analogy of signs”: both God and human beings are univocally involved in semiosis, or sign-process, and the confirmation of God’s semiotic identity is found in the revelation of God in the person of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God. Therefore, ordinary analogical language is intelligible, for divine signs are commensurate with human signs.

Utilizing the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, Rory Misiewicz argues for a new approach to the problem of theological language in Christian theology. This approach, the "analogy of signs," serves as a critical alternative to influential models of theological language based upon an analogy of being, grammatical analogy, or analogy of faith.

The book is the first comprehensive encyclopedia of Western ideograms ever published, unique in its search systems, that allows the reader to locate a symbol by defining just four of its visual characteristics. It is about our graphic cultural heritage as expressed in subway graffiti, fighter jets' signs and emergency exit symbols. It contains 2,300 symbols, 1,600 articles and streamlined reference functions. Ideogram scarved in mammoth teeth by Cro-Magnon men 25,000 years ago, put on modern household appliances by their manufacturers or sprayed on walls by political activists, are all presented in dictionary form for easy reference. Symbols cover current designs used in advertising, logotyping, architecture, design, decoration, religion, politics and astrology.

Years ago a primary teacher told me about a great series of lessons she had just had. The class had visited rock pools on the seashore, and when she asked them about their observations they talked about: it was like a factory, it was like a church, it was like a garden, it was like our kitchen at breakfast time, etc. Each student’s analogy could be elaborated, and these analogies provided her with strongly engaged students and a great platform from which to develop their learning about biological diversity and interdependence. In everyday life we learn so many things by comparing and contrasting. The use of analogies and metaphors is important in science itself and their use in teaching science seems a natural extension, but textbooks with their own sparse logic, do not help teachers or students. David Ausubel in the 1960s had advocated the use of ‘advance organisers’ to introduce the teaching of conceptual material in the sciences, and some of these had an analogical character. However, research on the value of this idea was cumbersome and indecisive, and it ceased after just a few studies. In the 1980s research into children’s conceptions of scientific phenomena and concepts really burgeoned, and it was soon followed by an exploration of a new set of pedagogical strategies that recognised a student in a science class is much more than a tabula rasa.