Class notes on Analogical Language

(Originally written April 17, 2007 in book 25)

Class  Notes

How can I, a finite human being, whose language is learned in the context of finitude, apply this same language to an infinite God?

Thomistic Analogous language about God

Objection to Analogy:

1. Finite concepts taken out of a finite mode are meaningless
2. To think our finite concepts are applicable to God takes away from the transcendence of God
3. Even if analogy works it is a weak analogy at best
4. Ambiguity as to which finite concepts can be applied to God
5. Choices of finite concepts appear arbitrary
6. Equivocation and univocity are inconsistent. You can't have just a little equivocity nor can you have just some univocity. Analogy attempts to blend the two

Is there no way we can talk about God? Or Analogy as our last hope

Words can be used in two senses:
Univocal - anthropomorphism
Equivocal - Skepticism

It is central to our faith that we can talk about God
Philosophically, univocal and equivocal language is null

We have no choice but to talk analogically about God

Analogy makes the best sense of our experience of life and talk about God

Analogy is how we talk about most things most often

Linehan: Why we can talk univocally about God:
1. Image of God/likeness of God
2. Incarnation of Christ
3. Indwelling of the holy spirit

Analogy and Being

In the concept of Being everything is understood analogically (Eric Mascall)

Objections/Hurdles:
1. Analogy is an arbitrary way of thinking
response: analogy is used in lots of language why not religious language?

2. Isn't God too inaccessible to us to speak about Him by analogy or in any way?
response: there is no gulf between God and man that is impassible. God bridged the gap with creation/incarnation

3. There must be definable, separable univocity and equivocacy
- It can't be all univocity
- It can't be all equivocate

Response: When we talk about God the word/concept is univocal, but the way it is predicated is equivocal

i.e. Chris has being. God has being. Being is univocal in meaning, but applicable to God in a different way than to Chris

Duns Scotus claimed everything must be univocal. Aquinas held that the concept was univocally understood and defined, but predicated analogically.

This works because God and people are causally connected (Metaphysical argument). God is the essential cause, not the accidental cause of the universe.

Analogy can yield no new knowledge. If X is like Y is only comprehensible if I know X and Y and can then deduce similarities. But if I do not know Y at all I cannot say anything about it (equivocally, analogically, or univocally)

What does the analogy look like?

Not analogy duorum ad tertium, analogy unius ad alterum

duorum ad tertium: 3rd party analogy
unius ad alterum: analogy of similar aspects of two things

Attribution analogy: God has being so much as it is necessary to have in order to cause being in Mr. Jones.

Proportionality analogy - Life of a woman/essence of a woman = life of God/essence of God
the way in which the life of the woman is determined by the essence of a woman is proportional to the life of God is determined by the essence of God

By combining analogy of attribution and analogy of proportionality we can produce meaningful language concerning God. Without analogy of attribution or without analogy of proportionality the analogy fails to be meaningful.

How a woman is is proper to its mode. How a man is is proper to its mode. How an elephant is is proper to its mode. How God is is proper to its mode.