The questions of God’s existence, nature, and will have captivated humanity from the beginning. Yet if God transcends all of creation, as Christians and classical theists claim, then how can we even say or discuss anything about God that makes any sense?

This problem has led philosophers to ask about the nature of language itself. One of the oldest sources explaining how language affects one’s knowledge about reality, including the reality of God, comes from Aristotle. In Categories, Aristotle distinguishes between terms that are used “univocally” and terms that are used “equivocally,” and in Metaphysics, Aristotle describes analogical language. Influenced by this philosophy, Thomas Aquinas incorporated the use of univocal, equivocal, and analogical language into his treatment of how we speak about God, emphasizing the necessity of analogical language in order for humanity to speak intelligently about God at all. Let’s examine these three types before turning to the discussion about God.

Univocal Language

Univocal comes from the Latin unus, which means “one,” and vox, meaning “voice,” and the simplest use of words occurs when the same word has the same meaning in all its uses. For example, if the word “pen,” only meant “writing utensil,” there would never be any confusion when someone used the word. Aristotle uses the example of a “man” and an “ox,” which are both described as “animal.” This is true if the term “animal” is being used in the technical, scientific sense. However, sometimes the word “animal” is used metaphorically to describe a man to denote something sub-human about how that man is acting (“Stop eating like an animal!”).

Equivocal Language

Equivocal language is the basis for a lot of jokes and word plays. It means “to call equal.” To equivocate is to take two unequal things and refer to them as the same thing.

This is where confusion comes. The basis of the joke is that you expect the word to be used one way, while it is actually used in another unexpected way. Consider the “pen” example from above. If one person refers to a “pen” meaning a “writing utensil,” but the other person thinks of it as “a place for pigs,” then confusion will result. Because these two terms are so different, using the same word without explaining which definition one is using will not help someone understand your meaning. Context often helps discern this; however, when dealing with abstract ideas like the nature of God, this ambiguity requires more explicit clarification.

Analogical Language

Though Aristotle does not use the term “analogical,” he describes words with “several meanings,” where “the other meanings will be related to the primary meaning.” This relationship to the “primary meaning” is what distinguishes the analogy to simply equivocating terms. For example, consider the previous “man” and “ox” as examples of “animal.” The technical use of the word “animal” is univocal because they both consume organic material, breathe oxygen, and reproduce sexually; however, because humans possess a distinct quality from other animals – rationality – there is something that sets humans apart. When a human, whom one would expect to act rationally, appears to act purely out of instinct, then that person is accused of acting “like an animal” in the analogical sense.

What Does This Have to Do With God?

In “Summa Theologiae,” Thomas Aquinas argues that if the words humans use to describe God are being used univocally, then it puts God on the same level as humans. If God’s goodness is no different than human goodness, then God is subject to something just like humans are, namely “goodness.” However, if the words humans use to describe God are used equivocally, this makes God so different that any knowledge or description of God would be impossible.

But this is self-contradictory. For one to say that God is so different from humanity that humanity can have no knowledge of God, one would have to know something about God – God’s unknowability. If one says that God is so different from humanity that humanity cannot say anything about God, then one would have just said something about God. Even aside from revelation, some things about God must be knowable, even if it is something as foundational as God’s existence.

Aquinas addresses this concern by implementing analogical language, which recognizes difference and similarity when discussing words related to God. For example, Aquinas uses the term “healthy” to both describe something that causes health and to describe something that is a sign of good health. These two uses are similar because both refer to the functioning of a body. But they also have an important distinction: source versus participant.

Distinguishing between source and participant is how classical theists use analogical language to describe God. If God exists, then God’s existence is analogous to ours because it would be similar, both existing, but different (the manner of existing). Classical philosophy sees God as producing existence while creatures like us participate in existence. One can consider this analogical language when determining other attributes of God’s as well like beauty, goodness, or knowledge.

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image credit: Unsplash