The apophatic way, or via negative, as a way of speaking about God.
If we try and use normal language to describe God, we are always going to misrepresent him. If
people speak of God as a ‘judge’ or a ‘father’ we think of people and things we know and these are
not comparable. We anthropomorphise God and bring him into our contingent and more simplistic
world.
Descriptions that try to give God positive attributes are always misleading and should be avoided. If
we say ‘God is love’ or ‘God is good’ we start thinking about our own human experiences of
goodness and love when these human characteristics are so temporary and flawed that it is belittling
to apply the same concepts to God.
The apophatic way involves speaking of God using only negative to emphasise the difference
between God and humanity. God is described as ‘immortal’ ‘timeless’ ‘incorporeal’. These
descriptions of ‘what God is not’ are regarded as plain statements of fact.
Psuedo-Dionysius argued that the via negativa is the only way in which we can speak truthfully
about God, because God is beyond all human understanding and imagination. As contingent beings
we are limited and not capable of fully comprehending God. It is only through recognition of the
limits of humanity and acceptance of God’s mystery that spiritual progress can be made.
Moses Maimonides uses the example of a ship. After slowly eliminating all the things a ship is not,
you will have almost arrived at the correct notion and understanding of one.
Positives:
- It is a way of conveying the otherness and mystery of God, and underlines the belief that
God is not like us.
- It does not place any limits on God and prevents us from anthropomorphising or
misrepresenting him.
- It can be seen as a means by which we can say something about God which is literally true.
The statements do not require interpretation and avoid the need for people to guess what
an analogy or symbol might mean. They are understandable across all ages and cultures.
Negatives:
These are not facts but still assumptions.
Brian Davies argues that only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is.
In Maimonides’ example it is unreasonable to suggest that someone through negation will arrive at a
ship and not, say, a wardrobe or a coffin. Suppose I say there is something in my room and I reject
every suggestion you make as to what is there. In that case, you will get no idea at all about what is
in my room.
While it might be successful in conveying the mystery of God it is less successful in helping someone
who has no idea of God towards any real understanding of what religious believers mean when
talking about God.
When we try to arrive at something by a process of elimination, we need to know before we start
what the different possibilities are.
Anthony Flew argued that if we try to explain God by saying he is invisible, soundless, incorporeal etc
there is very difference between our definition of God and our definition of nothingness.
If we try and use normal language to describe God, we are always going to misrepresent him. If
people speak of God as a ‘judge’ or a ‘father’ we think of people and things we know and these are
not comparable. We anthropomorphise God and bring him into our contingent and more simplistic
world.
Descriptions that try to give God positive attributes are always misleading and should be avoided. If
we say ‘God is love’ or ‘God is good’ we start thinking about our own human experiences of
goodness and love when these human characteristics are so temporary and flawed that it is belittling
to apply the same concepts to God.
The apophatic way involves speaking of God using only negative to emphasise the difference
between God and humanity. God is described as ‘immortal’ ‘timeless’ ‘incorporeal’. These
descriptions of ‘what God is not’ are regarded as plain statements of fact.
Psuedo-Dionysius argued that the via negativa is the only way in which we can speak truthfully
about God, because God is beyond all human understanding and imagination. As contingent beings
we are limited and not capable of fully comprehending God. It is only through recognition of the
limits of humanity and acceptance of God’s mystery that spiritual progress can be made.
Moses Maimonides uses the example of a ship. After slowly eliminating all the things a ship is not,
you will have almost arrived at the correct notion and understanding of one.
Positives:
- It is a way of conveying the otherness and mystery of God, and underlines the belief that
God is not like us.
- It does not place any limits on God and prevents us from anthropomorphising or
misrepresenting him.
- It can be seen as a means by which we can say something about God which is literally true.
The statements do not require interpretation and avoid the need for people to guess what
an analogy or symbol might mean. They are understandable across all ages and cultures.
Negatives:
These are not facts but still assumptions.
Brian Davies argues that only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is.
In Maimonides’ example it is unreasonable to suggest that someone through negation will arrive at a
ship and not, say, a wardrobe or a coffin. Suppose I say there is something in my room and I reject
every suggestion you make as to what is there. In that case, you will get no idea at all about what is
in my room.
While it might be successful in conveying the mystery of God it is less successful in helping someone
who has no idea of God towards any real understanding of what religious believers mean when
talking about God.
When we try to arrive at something by a process of elimination, we need to know before we start
what the different possibilities are.
Anthony Flew argued that if we try to explain God by saying he is invisible, soundless, incorporeal etc
there is very difference between our definition of God and our definition of nothingness.
