“The apophatic way enables effective understanding of theological
discussion” Discuss.
Introduction
Define: Apophatic way (via negative)- A way of speaking about God and
theological ideas using only terms that say what God is not.
Cataphatic way (via positive)- A range of ways of speaking about God and
theological ideas using only terms that say what God is.
Symbol- A word or other kind or representation used to stand for something else
and to shed light on its meaning.
Importance: Regular language- argued to be reductive of God’s nature, some
argue that apophatic way solves this, however unnatural way to speak about
God.
Scholars: Aquinas, Tillich, Maimonides
Conclusion: The Apophatic way does not enable an effective way of
understanding the theological discussion.
Paragraph 1
Point: The apophatic way does not enable an effective way of understanding the
theological discussions.
Argument: The idea behind the via Negativa is associated with Pseudo-
Dionysius, a 6th century Christian philosopher. He supported the via Negativa as
the only way we can talk about God because he is “beyond all being and
knowledge”. So, we must move beyond language altogether to “the divine
darkness” which lies beyond any concept. Until they are ready to accept this
then people will end up describing God in positive terms, only to end up with an
idea of God which is too small. Rather, those people genuinely seeking God to
understand God should stop describing God in positive terms and just allow God
to speak to them in stillness, allowing that God is a mystery.
Maimonides- He believed that the only way to describe the attributes of God is in
negative terms. By people coming to an understanding of what God is not, they
move closer to approaching what he is.
Counterargument: The first concerns the claim that it is possible to approach
some understanding of God simply by saying what God is not. Maimonides
clearly thinks that this claim is true; but the reverse is surely the case. For only
saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is, and if one
can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.
Paragraph 2
Point: The Cataphatic way enables a more effective understanding of
theological discussion than the apophatic way.
Argument: Sometimes, we use words for two different things in a way that is
univocal- which means the same words are used in exactly the same way, for
example when we talk about a bath mat and a doormat.
, Sometimes we use words for two different things in a way that is equivocal-
which means the same word is used in two completely different ways, such as
when we talk about a fruit bat and a cricket bat, or a dining table and a periodic
table.
When the same word is used in different contexts with similar yet also different
meanings- Acceptable because it tells you something about God but not fully
therefore not limiting him.
Analogy of attribution- Where there is a casual relationship between the two
things being described. Based on the Christian belief that God is the creator of
the universe and that everything ultimately comes from him. If the world is the
result of a deliberate action of a thinking being then there is something in
common between that which is made and the maker.
Paragraph 3
Point: The Cataphatic way enables a more effective understanding of
theological discussion than the apophatic way.
Argument: People use symbols to describe God and their relationship to God,
saying things like, ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ or ‘God is my rock’. They also use
symbols instead of language to convey meanings that cannot readily be put into
words, or to evoke particular feelings, or to identify themselves as members of a
particular group of believers so that they can be easily recognised by others.
Paul Tillich- Viewed God as "ground of being" and the reason for everything we
see. Therefore it is only possible to comprehended God through
symbols.Believed there was a distinction between signs and symbols -Signs are
chosen arbitrary (based on random choice, rather than any reason or system) to
stand for something. As long as we agree it doesn't matter what form the sign
takes.-Where as a symbol participates in the object represented. For example: A
national flag evokes feelings of loyalty and patriotism as well as symbolising the
country.
Counterargument: Hick feels Tillich over emphasises the aesthetic artistic
nature of religious symbol making it appear very subjective and open to many
different interpretations. Tillich’s view almost seems to suggest there is no
factual content to religious language- emotional not factual- non-cognitive rather
than cognitive.
Tillich talks about ‘participation’ unfortunately he does not fully explain this. How
does the symbol “the goodness of God” participate in the same way a flag
participates in the power and dignity of a nation.
discussion” Discuss.
Introduction
Define: Apophatic way (via negative)- A way of speaking about God and
theological ideas using only terms that say what God is not.
Cataphatic way (via positive)- A range of ways of speaking about God and
theological ideas using only terms that say what God is.
Symbol- A word or other kind or representation used to stand for something else
and to shed light on its meaning.
Importance: Regular language- argued to be reductive of God’s nature, some
argue that apophatic way solves this, however unnatural way to speak about
God.
Scholars: Aquinas, Tillich, Maimonides
Conclusion: The Apophatic way does not enable an effective way of
understanding the theological discussion.
Paragraph 1
Point: The apophatic way does not enable an effective way of understanding the
theological discussions.
Argument: The idea behind the via Negativa is associated with Pseudo-
Dionysius, a 6th century Christian philosopher. He supported the via Negativa as
the only way we can talk about God because he is “beyond all being and
knowledge”. So, we must move beyond language altogether to “the divine
darkness” which lies beyond any concept. Until they are ready to accept this
then people will end up describing God in positive terms, only to end up with an
idea of God which is too small. Rather, those people genuinely seeking God to
understand God should stop describing God in positive terms and just allow God
to speak to them in stillness, allowing that God is a mystery.
Maimonides- He believed that the only way to describe the attributes of God is in
negative terms. By people coming to an understanding of what God is not, they
move closer to approaching what he is.
Counterargument: The first concerns the claim that it is possible to approach
some understanding of God simply by saying what God is not. Maimonides
clearly thinks that this claim is true; but the reverse is surely the case. For only
saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is, and if one
can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.
Paragraph 2
Point: The Cataphatic way enables a more effective understanding of
theological discussion than the apophatic way.
Argument: Sometimes, we use words for two different things in a way that is
univocal- which means the same words are used in exactly the same way, for
example when we talk about a bath mat and a doormat.
, Sometimes we use words for two different things in a way that is equivocal-
which means the same word is used in two completely different ways, such as
when we talk about a fruit bat and a cricket bat, or a dining table and a periodic
table.
When the same word is used in different contexts with similar yet also different
meanings- Acceptable because it tells you something about God but not fully
therefore not limiting him.
Analogy of attribution- Where there is a casual relationship between the two
things being described. Based on the Christian belief that God is the creator of
the universe and that everything ultimately comes from him. If the world is the
result of a deliberate action of a thinking being then there is something in
common between that which is made and the maker.
Paragraph 3
Point: The Cataphatic way enables a more effective understanding of
theological discussion than the apophatic way.
Argument: People use symbols to describe God and their relationship to God,
saying things like, ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ or ‘God is my rock’. They also use
symbols instead of language to convey meanings that cannot readily be put into
words, or to evoke particular feelings, or to identify themselves as members of a
particular group of believers so that they can be easily recognised by others.
Paul Tillich- Viewed God as "ground of being" and the reason for everything we
see. Therefore it is only possible to comprehended God through
symbols.Believed there was a distinction between signs and symbols -Signs are
chosen arbitrary (based on random choice, rather than any reason or system) to
stand for something. As long as we agree it doesn't matter what form the sign
takes.-Where as a symbol participates in the object represented. For example: A
national flag evokes feelings of loyalty and patriotism as well as symbolising the
country.
Counterargument: Hick feels Tillich over emphasises the aesthetic artistic
nature of religious symbol making it appear very subjective and open to many
different interpretations. Tillich’s view almost seems to suggest there is no
factual content to religious language- emotional not factual- non-cognitive rather
than cognitive.
Tillich talks about ‘participation’ unfortunately he does not fully explain this. How
does the symbol “the goodness of God” participate in the same way a flag
participates in the power and dignity of a nation.
