By Christopher on Analogy, Thomism tagged analogical, analogy, Thomism

Analogical Religious Language

We gave an LLM ~11,000 words by Norman Geisler on the principle of analogy from three of his published books (dated 1999, 2015, and 2017) and asked it to shorten it to ~2,300 words.

Norman Geisler’s View of the Thomistic Principle of Analogy

Norman Geisler defends the Thomistic principle of analogy as the only adequate solution to the problem of religious language—how finite human beings can make meaningful, true statements about an infinite God. Drawing heavily from Thomas Aquinas, Geisler argues that our natural knowledge of God, derived from His creation, is neither univocal (completely the same) nor equivocal (completely different) but analogical (similar in a qualified way). This analogy is rooted in the causal relationship between Creator and creature: an efficient cause communicates something of itself to its effects, so creation resembles God without being identical to Him.

The Necessity of Analogy

Univocal predication is impossible because God is infinite and unlimited, while human concepts and creatures are finite and limited. If terms like “good” or “being” were applied to God in exactly the same way as to creatures, it would either reduce God to a finite mode of existence or falsely elevate creatures to infinity. Equivocal predication is equally impossible because it would sever all connection between cause and effect. If creation bore no resemblance to its Creator, no real knowledge of God would be possible—effects would reveal nothing about their cause. Yet Scripture and reason affirm that we can know God truly, albeit imperfectly. Equivocation leads to skepticism or agnosticism, implying that God-talk conveys nothing objective about God Himself.

Analogy avoids both extremes. As Aquinas states, names applied to God are “taken neither univocally nor equivocally, but analogically.” The same perfection (e.g., goodness, existence) is present in both Creator and creature, but in radically different modes: infinitely and essentially in God, finitely and derivatively in creatures. Analogy thus preserves genuine, positive knowledge of God without collapsing the Creator-creature distinction.

The Role of the Via Negativa

A crucial component of Thomistic analogy is the via negativa (way of negation). Before attributing a perfection found in creation to God, we must negate all finite limitations or modes of existence associated with it. For example, when we observe goodness in creatures, it is always limited, changeable, and mixed with imperfection. To speak truly of God, we retain the perfection signified (the “what”—goodness itself) but deny the finite mode of signification (the “how”—limited, participated goodness). God is not good in the way creatures are good; He is Goodness itself, unlimited and subsistent.

Failure to employ negation risks either anthropomorphism (demoting God to creaturely finitude) or idolatry (treating finite concepts as exhaustively capturing the infinite). The definition of the attribute remains the same (univocal in concept), but its application or extension is analogous, reflecting the infinite difference in being.

The Causal Foundation of Analogy

Analogy is grounded in the principle of efficient causality: like produces like. God, as Pure Actuality (or Pure Being), communicates actuality to His effects. Being causes being; a Cause possessing a perfection cannot produce effects lacking all similarity to that perfection. God cannot give what He does not have. Thus, wherever we find existence, goodness, wisdom, or other pure perfections in creation, they must resemble (without equaling) the infinite perfections in God from which they derive.

However, since God cannot create another uncreated, necessary Being, all creatures are contingent compositions of actuality and potentiality. They possess existence but also the potency not to exist. God, by contrast, is Pure Actuality without any limiting potentiality. Creatures resemble God only in their actuality (what they positively are), not in their potentiality or limitations. This causal similarity provides the objective basis for analogical predication.

Kinds of Analogy

Geisler distinguishes several types of analogy, emphasizing that only intrinsic analogy supports real knowledge of God.

Extrinsic Analogy: The perfection belongs properly only to the effect, attributed to the cause merely because it produces the effect (e.g., food is called “healthy” because it produces health, not because food is literally healthy). This yields only extrinsic attribution and leads to agnosticism about God’s intrinsic nature.
Analogy of Improper Proportionality: Based on similar relations rather than shared perfections (e.g., smile is to face as flowers are to meadow). This is merely metaphorical or mental, lacking real ontological similarity.
Analogy of Proper Proportionality: Compares how a perfection relates to essence in each analogate (infinite goodness is to infinite being as finite goodness is to finite being). While useful, it is secondary.
Analogy of Intrinsic Attribution: The preferred Thomistic model. Both cause and effect intrinsically possess the same perfection, with the effect receiving it from the cause (e.g., a hot stove communicates heat to water; both become hot). God, as efficient Cause, intrinsically communicates perfections like being, goodness, and wisdom to creatures. Creatures possess these derivatively and finitely; God possesses them essentially and infinitely. This intrinsic, causal attribution grounds true, objective statements about God’s nature.

The Creator-creature relationship is thus causal, intrinsic, essential (per se, not accidental), and efficient (not merely instrumental or material). God is the principal efficient Cause of the very being of creatures, not just their becoming or material composition.

Analogy in General and Special Revelation

Analogy applies both to natural theology (general revelation) and Scripture (special revelation). Arguments for God’s existence move from effects (contingent beings) to their uncaused Cause (Necessary Being). Since effects resemble their efficient Cause in actuality, we can predicate perfections discovered in creation to God—provided we negate limitations.

Scripture uses human language rooted in finite experience to reveal an infinite God. Biblical affirmations that God is good, loving, wise, etc., cannot be univocal (capturing God’s essence exhaustively) nor equivocal (unrelated to God’s reality). They are analogical: truly revealing what God is like, while acknowledging that God infinitely transcends all human concepts (Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 13:12; John 1:18).

Responses to Objections

Geisler addresses common criticisms:

Analogy depends on questionable causality: Causality is a first principle of reason; denying it leads to absurdity (something cannot come from nothing, nor can a cause lack what it gives).
Words lose meaning when stripped of finite modes: The distinction between the perfection signified (univocal concept) and mode of signification (analogous predication) resolves this. “Being” means the same whether applied to God or creatures; only the manner (infinite vs. finite) differs.
No univocal core can be isolated: Perfections like existence and goodness have a univocal core meaning detachable from finite limitations. We understand “goodness” positively before negating creaturely restrictions.
Modern linguistic theories (e.g., Wittgenstein) render the distinctions obsolete: Meaning is not purely conventional or contextual; objective, essential meaning is necessary to avoid self-defeating relativism. The univocal/equivocal/analogical triad is logically exhaustive.
Why only certain qualities apply to God: Only pure perfections rooted in actuality (not potentiality or limitation) can be predicated of God, who is Pure Actuality.

Conclusion

For Geisler, Thomistic analogy is the via media between skepticism (equivocation) and idolatry (univocation). It affirms that we can know God truly through His effects in creation and His revelation in Scripture, but always in a similar, not identical, manner. Creatures are like God in their actuality (received from Him) and unlike Him in their potentiality (which He lacks). Religious language, properly understood, is analogical: concepts are univocal, predications analogous, limitations negated.

This preserves both the transcendence and immanence of God: He is infinitely beyond us yet genuinely knowable through the resemblance He has imprinted on creation. Without analogy, meaningful God-talk collapses into either silence or presumption. Analogy alone enables authentic knowledge of the Creator from the creature.