
Aquinas argued that when we use words like "good," "wise," or "loving" about God, we're not using them in exactly the same way as we use them about humans (that would be univocal), nor are we using them in completely different ways as if the words mean nothing alike (that would be equivocal). Instead, we use them analogically. There are two main types: Analogy of Attribution—human qualities like goodness come from God as their source. For example, bread is called "healthy" because it causes health; similarly, when humans are good, this "goodness" is caused by and derives from God's goodness. Analogy of Proportion—qualities are shared between different kinds of things according to their nature. For example, "life" applies to a plant, an animal, a human, and God—but in proportion to their natures: God's "life" is infinitely greater than ours, but the word is meaningful for both. This approach avoids cutting God down to size with human-only language while also avoiding making talk about God meaningless.
When people say, "God is good," do they mean:
Aquinas' analogical approach finds a middle ground: Words have similar, but not identical, meaning when applied to God and creatures.
Aquinas' analogy of attribution is about how qualities in effects point to similar (but greater) qualities in the source or cause.
If bread is said to be "good," it is because it is made by a good baker—the bread "shares in" the baker's goodness by being a good product.
Likewise, everything created is good because God is ultimately the "good baker" (the cause/source of all goodness).
Aquinas' analogy of proportion looks at how a quality is present in different ways, according to the nature of each being.
So, the same word is applied with meaning "in proportion to the nature" of each thing.
Not that God is "good" in just the way people are good, but that God has goodness in the way that is fitting to God's infinite, perfect nature, as people have goodness in the limited way fitting to being human.
A : B :: C : D (A is to B as C is to D)
"God's knowledge is to God as human knowledge is to humans."
God knows everything completely and perfectly to God as humans know some things incompletely to humans. The relationship is the same (knower to object of knowledge), but the scope and perfection differ infinitely.
We don't "cut God down to size" with language only fit for humans.
We don't make talking about God meaningless.
We can say something true and positive about God, knowing it is an analogy, not a direct description.
| Analogy Type | What it means | Example | How it works for God |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution | Effect has quality because cause has it | Healthy urine from healthy bull; good bread from good baker | Creation's goodness reflects God as its source |
| Proper Proportion | Quality present in each per their nature | Life in plant, animal, human, God—all to different degrees | God's attributes/faculties exist in infinite, perfect degree; humans in finite way |
"When we predicate 'good' of God and of creatures, we do not use the term equivocally. Since the effect depends on its cause, the names we attribute to God and to creatures are said to be used analogously, because the meaning is partly the same and partly different."
"When we say God is wise and a human is wise, we mean that both possess wisdom according to their natures, but God's wisdom is infinite and perfect and human wisdom is finite and imperfect."