Essay
You cannot talk positvely about God. Discuss
- Course
- Institution
This was written in year 13, achieving an A* grade and discusses whether it is possible to talk about God in a positive, meaningful way
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
lucyhgworthington
Reviews received
Content preview
You cannot talk positively about God. DiscussThe statement ‘you cannot talk positively about God’ can be directly attributed to the Via Negativa
approach, which argues that people can only talk about God in negative terms. Despite this apophatic
style of reasoning, there are several other ways of talking about God, particularly through Aquinas’
analogy arguments and Paul Tillich’s symbolism, that postulate a juxtaposing argument to that of Via
Negativa, arguing that it is possible to talk about God in a positive way. Therefore, through further
evaluation of each religious language approach, this essay will demonstrate that Via Negativa - for all
its logical appeal and for all its possibilities in terms of framing that language of spirituality and
personal faith - is far from being the best approach to religious language and thus in turn, the
statement is flawed. It is predominantly through Aquinas’ Analogy of Attribution, amalgamated with
his Analogy of Proportionality, that instead offers a more coherent understanding of how to talk about
God in a positive light. Moreover, this line of argument will include the scholarly opinions of
Maimonides, Brian Davies, Rudolph Otto, Aquinas, Stephen Evans, William Blackstone, Paul Tillich
and Carl Jung.
The first way in which the statement ‘you cannot talk positively about God’ needs to be assessed, is
through examining the Via Negativa approach in further detail. Maimonides emphasised the use of
apophatic theology, and argued that any attempt to speak about God using positive language was
ultimately futile, as you could never say anything about God that was meaningful. The theologian
uses an example of a ship to corroborate his claim; by describing what a ship isn’t, we can get a close
understanding of what a ship is. Maimonides’ analogy is thus an attempt to show that through the
process of elimination, we can finally arrive at the notion of God having removed every other
possibility. The philosopher furthered his Via Negativa approach by arguing that not only was it not
necessary to speak positively about God, but to do so would result in a loss of faith. The Via Negativa
stream of thinking has some value, especially within Christianity, as not only does it emphasise the
transcendent and otherness of God; the language has also been used by mystics and people who have
religious experiences to describe the ineffable nature of their encounters. Rudolph Otter corroborates
this strength of Via Negativa, contending that religious language didn’t have to be positive, as all it
needed to do was to convey ‘fearful and fascinating mystery’. For Otter, as long as apophatic
language did this, then that is all that is necessary. However, despite Via Negativa’s practicality for
discussing religious experiences, Brian Davies disputes the work of Maimonides, arguing that his ship
example was unhelpful, as a process of elimination never actually arrives at what a thing is. The
scholar proclaims “It is simply unreasonable to say that someone who has all the negations mentioned
is almost at the nature of a ship. He may equally be thinking of a wardrobe”. Davies postulates a great
argument here; seemingly an apophatic approach leads us to lose a connection with God and is frankly
unhelpful to someone who knows nothing of the Divine as some objects may even share the same
qualities. Davies further argues that one needs to know what you are talking about in order to ever
arrive at the final notion. I have experience of ships and therefore I may be able to comprehend the
notion that Maimonides intends, however there is no reason why I would ever guess that a ship is
what he means. It is thus clear through the criticisms of Brian Davies that Maimonidies’ example to
corroborate his own claim is flawed in itself, and that due to this intrinsic weakness within his
approach, it is not convincing to use negative language when speaking of God.
Aquinas, however, took a different approach to Maimonides, and was an advocate for the use of
cataphatic language, more precisely the application of analogies when talking about God. An analogy
is the linguistic method of building an idea of one thing, by comparing it to another which we know
and have experienced. In this way, religious tradition uses it to help believers build a relationship with
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lucyhgworthington. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.22. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
81989 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now