Does the apophatic way (via negativa) provide an effective
method for theological discussion?
Yes, it does No, it doesn’t
For some, the apophatic way is the best If we speak of God only negatively,
way of attempting to communicate ideas then it is not easy for the person
about God, because it is a way of who has no experience of God to
recognizing that we have to go beyond know what we mean – To say that
our normal everyday experiences ‘white is the opposite of black’ or ‘grass
and language in order to encounter is not yellow’ does not give much help to
God. It does not place a limit on God by the person who has never seen and has
giving a point of reference that is within no concept of ‘white’. God cannot be
the physical world. It is a way of reached by a process of elimination
conveying the essential otherness if he is outside our experience.
and mystery of God, and underlining Brian Davies: Criticises Maimonides –
the belief that God is not like us. “Only saying what something is not
gives us no indication of what it
actually is”
“If one can only say what God is
not, one cannot understand him at
all”.
He gives the example: Suppose I say that
there is something in my room, and
suppose I reject every suggestion you
make as to what is actually there. In that
case you will get no idea at all about
what is in my room.
The via negativia overcomes the Another objection that could be
problems of symbolism as it does made to Maimonides point of view –
not require interpretation – Unlike when we try to arrive at something by
symbolism or analogy, the via negativa process of elimination, we need to know
applies equally well in different cultures before we start, what the different
and in different periods of history. If we possibilities are so that we can know
do not use figurative language, which what we have left when alternatives
necessarily demands interpretation, we have been crossed off. Therefore, the
can say things that are understandable via negativa might not work for
and mean the same thing across cultures someone who begins by knowing
and generations. nothing of God.
Any language that is used of God is Many of the holy scriptures of the
inevitably pictured by its hearers in world’s religions do make positive
human terms. – For example, if statements about God – For example,
someone is told ‘God loves us’ then they the Bible makes positive claims that God
may interpret this as being the same is a king, a judge, a father, a shepherd, a
type of love as the love they have for rick. If it is believed that holy scripture
their partner. But because God is comes from God, then this would
timeless, spaceless and not human, his suggest that in the right context it can
love will be different to the love we be appropriate to make positive claims
understand. Therefore, the apophatic about God.
way does not make the mistake of the
cataphatic way – it prevents
anthropomorphic representations of
God.
Therefore, it can be argued also that
the apophatic way is more
, respectful in its approach – It
recognizes that God is transcendent and
wholly other to the human realm – which
is in accordance with religious beliefs.
The apophatic approach fits with Via positiva may provide better and
how religious experiences are deeper knowledge of God – Although,
perceived by those who experience the via positiva does make the mistake
them – William James observed that of describing God in ‘human’ terms, it
Religious experiences are ineffable provides the person who knows nothing
meaning they cannot be described in about God with a lot more information
ordinary language because they are than the via negativa does as it states
beyond the language of humans. what God is, rather than what God is not.
Similarly, humans are unable to describe To say ‘God is loving’ gives us a lot more
God in ordinary language, because it is information than to say ‘God is not bad’.
impossible to understand God as a
human (as he is completely different
from us).
AJ Ayer states that all religious
language is meaningless, so there is
no point in discussing these issues
in the first place – Ayer says a
statement only has meaning if it can be
verified. That is verified analytically (by
definition) for example, a triangle has 3
sides, or verified empirically for example,
water boils at 100 degrees. Any
statement that does not fit these
descriptions is meaningless. Statements
like ‘God exists’ are not analytic truths
and are also not empirically verifiable, so
these statements are meaningless and
only show us how the individual feels
about a certain topic.
ESSAY PLAN – To what extent is symbol an effective way of
communicating religious ideas?
Symbol is an effective way Symbol is not an effective way
- THESIS
Aquinas – argued, if God is timeless and Symbolism is not an effective way of
spaceless, the language about God must communicating religious ideas as it
be understood in different sense to is too open to interpretation – The
language applied to temporal and special fact that symbolism promotes
beings. This immediately raises problems interpretation is a weakness because it
as our language is entirely drawn from means symbolistic language is subjective
the spacio-temporal world, and therefore therefore is an invalid way of conveying
may, be inadequate. Aquinas religious meaning. For example, some
recognized this and he rejected two people do not have the ability to
ways of understanding language interpret religious symbols in the same
about God. Such language could not way as others, who may have been more
be UNIVOCAL (words that can only be exposed to religious ideas and beliefs.
