God, God-talk, and the Principle of Analogy. –
Some contemporary atheists deny not the existence of God but the very idea of God. As Charles Bradlaugh said, “The Atheist does not say ‘There is no God,’ but he says: ‘I know not what you mean by God; I am without the idea of God; the word “God” is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation” (cited in Martin, op. cit., 41). But many atheists and theists alike have evinced a very clear understanding of the concept of “God,” and it is this very understanding that has allowed the theist to meaningfully affirm God’s existence and the atheist to deny it. It seems prima facie reasonable to believe that talk about God is just as meaningful as any other talk.
There are three possible views of religious language (or God-talk) whereby one speaks of God. Such language is either equivocal (completely different from the way God is), univocal (identical to the way God is), or analogous (similar to the way God is). Equivocal God-talk is self-defeating, because it affirms of God that nothing can be affirmed of God. Univocal God-talk is impossible because of the infinite chasm that separates the finite expressions of humans from the ideas in the mind of the infinite God. The prophet Isaiah expresses this point well: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts…’ declares the LORD” (Isa. 55:8). For as Robert Flint notes,
In other words, it is not possible to predicate something of God the same way it is predicated of a finite being. The only alternative, then, is analogous God-talk, in which all limitations and finitude are removed by way of negation (i.e., by the “via negativa”) to allow for positive, meaningful statements about God. When attributes are predicated of God, there is always some negative element: God is uncaused, infinite, indivisible, simple (noncomplex), eternal (nontemporal), etc.
According to the Principle of Analogy, an effect must be similar to its cause. God qua Cause has metaphysical attributes that are communicated through His effects. Now, there are different types of analogies—intrinsic and extrinsic—and since the analogy between God and His creation is one of the former, the distinction between the two must be made. An extrinsic analogy is one in which the cause produces an effect, and the characteristic it produces it is said to “possess,” even though it does not possess the characteristic properly speaking. An example of this is “healthy” food, which is so called because it produces health, not because it is healthy “in itself.” An intrinsic analogy, on the other hand, is one in which the cause and the effect can both be properly said to have the same characteristic, each according to its own existence. God exists infinitely, and His creations exist finitely, but there is something they both have in common—the fact of existence. So Being communicates being, and Pure Actuality actualizes other actualities (albeit ones which are limited by potentiality).
So firstly, God is the intrinsic Cause of all existence. Secondly, it should be noted that the analogy between God and His creatures is based on efficient causality. God is the efficient Cause of creation. He is Creator and Sustainer, not merely Former, of what exists. He is not just the Cause of creation’s form, but also of it’s existence. Thirdly, this analogy is based on essential causality. God is the essential (per se) Cause of creation, not just the accidental (per accidens) Cause of it. For example, philosophers give birth to non-philosophers (per accidens), but only humans give birth to humans (per se). There is thus an essential similarity between God and creation. Lastly, the analogy between God and creation is based on principal causality. God is the principal Cause of creation, not the instrumental Cause. To illustrate this type of causality, consider the keyboard a writer uses. It is the instrumental cause of the novel he authors, but the novel does not resemble the keyboard. The author’s novel does, however, resemble the author’s mind. His mind is the principal cause of the novel.
There are, of course, some objections to analogous God-talk. Two of the more common objections shall be dealt with here. First, it seems that the theist arbitrarily picks and chooses which qualities or perfections shall be taken from the world and applied to God and which shall not. But this is false. Not everything flows from God’s intrinsic, efficient, essential, principal causality.
Second, it appears that words separated from finite conditions have no meaning. “Goodness” and “truth” mean nothing unless applied to some concrete reality. But God is a concrete reality, the theist argues, and the words are not emptied of meaning when applied to Him, but extended without limitation. God is, after all, a Being without limit. (For a more elaborate discussion, see Geisler’s ST vol. 1 and PR.)
Apologetics pg. 1
Apologetics pg. 2
Apologetics pg. 3
Apologetics pg. 4
References for Apologetics
Back to Intro
Reasons to Believe
