How is a personal god different from an anthropomorphic god?

[Pizza]

"A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person[1] instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being"."
"In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape.[2] In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person. Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships, such as a Father, as in Christianity, or a Friend as in Sufism.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

"By "personal" I mean endowed with rationality, self-consciousness, and volition—the usual sort of qualities associated with being a person."
Bill Craig himself- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-...z3v6x1SkhP

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities.[1] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism


Sounds like the same thing to me.
Thoughts anyone?

[robvalue]

Yeah, pretty much the same thing I suppose. "Personal God" is ironically a very accurate phrase.

I don't know if God can be technically anthropormorphised, because it hasn't been shown to exist in any form. If it's purely imaginary in the first place, it can't "morph" into anything. The phrase seems more accurate when applied to obviously real things that people project onto (such as evolution, the weather, etc.)

[bennyboy]

"Morph" means form, so anthropomorphic means it appears human, though it may not be. For example, a robot could be anthropomorphic even if it doesn't think or act like a human.

"Personal" hints at the conscious agency, so a personal God has a name, an identity, a will etc.

[Pizza]

@bennyboy, That's not quite right. It's not just about form but also traits.

"The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...pomorphism

If someone is attributing human mental characteristics and behavior to a god they are anthropomorphizing. Religious theism seems to be predicated on this in so. E.x thinking of a god in terms of being a loving father and behaving like one.

This does rise a question I've had on my mind. In what way is a god like a human beside just having "rationality, self-consciousness, and volition?" I mean people seems a like too quick to jump to conclusions about the nature of a god's mind being very much like a human's. Other animals have some degree of rationality, self-consciousness, and volition, do they count as "personal?" Is my cat "personal?" Is an ape "personal?"

[bennyboy]

@bennyboy, That's not quite right. It's not just about form but also traits.

"The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...pomorphism

Every discussion about words goes to this.  Guy A knows the eytmology, and states the literal meaning of the word based on the composition of its parts.  Guy B goes to a dictionary, and shows that the common usage includes another meaning-- conclusive proof that the word means what he says it means.  Which is right?  I lean toward the etymology, because it gives finer shades of distinction among synonyms.  It's not so much that it's "right," but I think holding on to original meanings adds more utility to the many "synonyms" we have which are slightly different in their composition: like the words in the OP, for example.

Otherwise, you could very easily claim that personality and anthropomorphism are the same thing, since their dictionary definitions overlap.  That's fine, too, but I prefer the additional shading that can be achieved by knowing what the parts of words mean, not what the dictionary says about modern usage.

If you want to use a dictionary, then everyone's opinion is right, and it becomes very hard to distinguish the meanings of words from each other until you analyze the collective meanings as sets:

anthropomorphism

1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.

2. resembling or made to resemble a human form:
an anthropomorphic carving.

personality

1. the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others:
He has a pleasing personality.

2. a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities:
He is a curious personality.

3. Psychology. a.the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b.the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.

4. the quality of being a person; existence as a self-conscious human being; personal identity.

5. the essential character of a person.

6. something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to a distinctive human personality, as the atmosphere of a place or thing:
This house has a warm personality.

7. a famous, notable, or prominent person; celebrity.

Both definition sets indicate that abstract properties justify usage of each word-- so talking about "Fluffy" as a person rather than a cat works for both words. However, if we look at the difference, you'll see that the definition of personality does NOT mention the physical composition of a person, but only abstract properties. Also, you can sense that the flavor of the definition for "anthropomorphism" heavily skews toward form, even though "or attributes" opens the meaning a lot. The definitions overlap, but not completely.

The OP asks about the differences between these words. The difference is that anthropormorphism can refer to physical form, but personality does not.

To be fair, even in the Christian world, you see both interpretations all the time. I've heard many Christians say that God is a person with 10 fingers and 10 toes. I've heard others say that "man was created in God's image" only means that we are unlike animals in that we have minds, souls and free wills.


--edit--
The etymology for "person" comes from the Latin persōna (role, as in playing your part in life). But this in turn comes from the Greek prósōpa (mask, face). This is interesting because while NONE of the listed definitions of personality from dictionary.com refer to form, the historical definition is based on something strongly structured: a mask.

[Delicate]

You need to draw a distinction between justified and unjustified anthropomorphism.

Clearly there are justified cases, such as when we anthropomorphize blobs of meat and bones, calling them persons.

Other times, we look at objects around us and anthropomorphize their causes, believing people designed them, and not rainfall and erosion.

So not all anthropomorphism is bad, right?

[Confused Ape]

I've heard many Christians say that God is a person with 10 fingers and 10 toes.  

It suggests that in the Bible. From Amos 7 - 21st Century King James Version.

7: Thus He showed me: And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made with a plumb line, with a plumb line in His hand.

[Mudhammam]

You need to draw a distinction between justified and unjustified anthropomorphism.

Clearly there are justified cases, such as when we anthropomorphize blobs of meat and bones, calling them persons.

Other times, we look at objects around us and anthropomorphize their causes, believing people designed them, and not rainfall and erosion.

So not all anthropomorphism is bad, right?

How would one be justified in the precision by which they draw a line between the anthropomorphism that Xenophanes mocked in the tales of the Homeric gods and that which the Muslims abhor in the tales of the Incarnated God of Christianity or that one may find objectionable in its incipient temple cult of the Israelites? Of course, "not all anthropomorphism is bad," but the point of the OP, I think, is that it is always unjustified when one is relating a metaphysical entity said to include the concept of infinity, of which ratiocination does not extend to such particulars as deities possessing analogous human characteristics, and the same suspicion that occasions egocentric or anthropocentric thought in other cases is most applicable here as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

An omnipotent intercessionary peacock would be an example of a personal god, but not an anthro god. An uninterested Zues figure would be anthro, but not personal. One term circumscribes the space between deism and theism, the other does not. They're very, very different terms in context.

[Delicate]

You need to draw a distinction between justified and unjustified anthropomorphism.

Clearly there are justified cases, such as when we anthropomorphize blobs of meat and bones, calling them persons.

Other times, we look at objects around us and anthropomorphize their causes, believing people designed them, and not rainfall and erosion.

So not all anthropomorphism is bad, right?

How would one be justified in the precision by which they draw a line between the anthropomorphism that Xenophanes mocked in the tales of the Homeric gods and that which the Muslims abhor in the tales of the Incarnated God of Christianity or that one may find objectionable in its incipient temple cult of the Israelites? Of course, "not all anthropomorphism is bad," but the point of the OP, I think, is that it is always unjustified when one is relating a metaphysical entity said to include the concept of infinity, of which ratiocination does not extend to such particulars as deities possessing analogous human characteristics, and the same suspicion that occasions egocentric or anthropocentric thought in other cases is most applicable here as well.

How would you show that it is always unjustified? How would you demonstrate that your position is credible?