the apophatic way-via negativa

Question 1

negative langauge

Answer 1

• means talking about what soemthing is not E.g. I could say ‘my cat is not orange’.
• whereas positvive language means talking about what soemthing is E.g. I could say ‘my cat is black’

Question 2

cognitive

Answer 2

has true or false repsonse

Question 3

non cognitive

Answer 3

• commands, greetings, bursts of emotion, music, theatre or poetry
• things which we could never know
• critics of RL emphaise the non-cog nature of rl

Question 4

aj ayer idea on rl

Answer 4

all language/sentence w god in it=meaningless

Question 5

richard dawkins vs religous ppl on cog sense of rl

born 1941

Answer 5

• religous ppl use language cognitively so should be able to be testable like facts altough it isnt
• they must be wrong on using their language like this
• religous ppl however respond saying that they mean it like saying purpose exists, it cannot be tested but it is, in a sense, true

Question 6

the benefits of saying nothing

Answer 6

• gods greater than all so language is inadequate when describing god
• r lngauge makes god to small
• if describe god as ‘judge’= expose him to human limitation=anthropomorphising god
• instead we say god is not

Question 7

the apophatic way,or via negativa, as a way of speaking about god

Answer 7

• apophatic way involves speaking of god using only negatives=emphaise diff between us n god
• god described as immortal, invisible, timeless,
• supports of VN argue these descriptions r plain statements of fact
• say those descriptions try give god positive attributes r misleading+should be avoided

Question 8

divine mystery

Answer 8

• ppl who accept via negativa believe its better to accept mysteries of god then to pin down god using flawed concepts
• =use these we belitttle god n imagine r reason is capable of understanding divine mystery
• copout clause?????????

Question 9

Pseudo-Dionysius

Answer 9

• God is ‘beyond every assertion’, beyond language
• he doesnt mean privation
• On the Via Negativa view, saying ‘God is not living’ is not the same as saying ‘God is lifeless’. It means that God is beyond the living/lifeless distinction
• If God is beyond all language, then God is beyond all distinctions we can make

Question 10

“there is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it.

Answer 10

Darkness and light, error and truth – it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial.” – Pseudo-Dionysius.

Question 11

knowing god by knowing nothing
moses getting 10 commandments

Answer 11

• try to understand god is pointless + counterproductive as it seperates us from god
• moses ascending of mount sinai to receiev 10 commandments from god- he describes moses as plunging into ‘darkness of unknowing’, ‘renouncing all that the mind may conceive’.
• break from r grasping for knowledge of god=casues an “inactivity of all knowledge” which leads one to be “supremely united to the completely unknown”
• so “knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing”
• =knowledge gained via unity w god

Question 12

unity n the fall story

Answer 12

• our desire to know god stands in way of being unity w god
• adam n eves disobedience n subsequent seperation from god was caused by their egocentric desire for knowledge
• save humanity from pride that leads to sin is goal of christianity
• so his notion of unity may be vague but deeply resonates w central theme of christianity
• strength of unity w divine beuing centre of RE=universalluy attested by mystics like st theresea of avila n william james

Question 13

support vn

william james

mystic

Answer 13

• it applies at all times unlike symbol or analogy
• doesnt limit god n allowed for what james calls the
• ‘mystical approach’

Question 14

moses maimunides

Answer 14

• 1135-1204 AD
• jewish thinker
• supporter of VN
• he explains attributes of god can only be understood via what theyre not n he warns of dangers of anthropomorphising god
  ‘guide for the perplexed’
• he uses example of ship

Question 15

moses eg of ship

Answer 15

• if 1 person says its not aan accident next says its not a mineral, not a plant or natural body, sphere etc
• he argues that the ‘10th person has almost arrived at notion of ship by the foregoing negatives attributes’

Question 16

buddhists on vn

Answer 16

• vn is used in attempt to convey central beliefs, nature of nirvana + of Buddha, r concepts that= notoriously difficult to describe.
• Although Buddhists dont believe in God, they still use the via negativa to try to convey the essence of ultimate reality, which cannot be described except as the negation of things we know from the physical world.

Question 17

strength cs lewis

Answer 17

• in his book miracles
• he advocates use of vn when thinking about god in order to cleanse r minds of miconception s
• he goes on to say we must then refill r minds w truth about god, untainted by mythology, bad analogies or false mind pictures

Question 18

problems: brian davies

Answer 18

• describing soemthing as what its not gives no clue to what it actually is
• saying gods not a wombat doesnt help u come closer to understanding what god is
• goes against idea of vn making unity w god?
• n so not useful in everyday eg its not cancer, not liver failure etc. what is it then?

Question 19

brian davies criticisze maimodenies

Answer 19

• negative language only allows us to actually gain knowldge in ‘special cases’ such as when we know possibilities there r for a thing eg if know persons not left handed=theyre right handed
• but in most cases (incl god) its not like that
• negative language about god doesnt grant us any further knowledge/idea of what were acc talking about

Question 20

strength:
true to gods transcendence

Answer 20

• otto called god ‘wholly other’= radically diff to anyhting else we experinece or understand
• augustine comments whatever we can comprehend is not god
• helps understand bible+gods immanence
• maimodenies agrued seemingly positive descriptions of god in bible should be interpreted as referring to gods immanence eg his actions to world
• VN defended as distinguishes between: gods transendece n immanence

Question 21

immanence meaning

Answer 21

God’s actions in the physical world which can be described positively, since God’s unknowable being/nature is not being described. This is what all biblical language about God is argued to refer to.

Question 22

weakness:
the bible describes god in postive terms

Answer 22

• theres other descriptions of god as having a ‘face’ or ‘walking’ in garden of eden= these could be metaphorical or refer to his immanent actions
• but theres passages which describe gods nature itself that seem difficult to maimodenies argument to explain
• gospel of john=positve=’god is love’ n ‘god is spirit’. god even describes himself as ‘i, the lord your god, am a jealous god’ (exodus 20:5)
• so bible seems to suggest via positivia language about god=valid. VN approach appears to conflict w religous language of bible

Question 23

exodus 20:5

Answer 23

god even describes himself as ‘i, the lord your god, am a jealous god’ (exodus 20:5)

Question 24

VN defence pseudo is more succesful than mainmodenies

Answer 24

• M may have gone too far w his approach. we cant get neareer to knowledge of god via process of elimination the way we can w a ship
• but pseudo=^ succesful. VN functions via shutting down r attempt to intellectually grasp god, which is what egts in way of r knowing god via unity w god
• so much more defensible sense in which we can get nearer to knowledge of god via negation

Question 25

weakness
Aquinas’ rejection of via negativa regarding everyday Christian meaning

Answer 25

• his claims of negative language that its “not what people want to say when they talk about God.”
• talk of god VN isnt really how most religous believers want to talk about god
• language heard during worship n in bible isnt consistent w vn
• eg bible says ‘god is love’+’spirit’
• A thinks his theory better captures RL. analogy of attribution n proportion arguably acc r ideas the average christian accepts
• when speak of god probs do accept their description depends on human experience/understanding which theyre attributing to god by analogy but still accept gods infinetely greater
• when christians say ‘god is love’ they know gods love is beyond anything we can understand, but its still analogous to human love, though proportionally greater

Question 26

defence of vn against aquinas

Answer 26

• aquinas weakness=unsuccesful as pseudo explains unity w god can be gained once we give up on attempt to understand god via reason
• spirtually involved in relationship w god is captured + strengthened once we give up on r false n spirtually distracting rational conception of god
• also average christian is unlikely to think of their religious language as analogical
• he may have succesfully figured out philosophically defensible way for RL to be meaningful but he hasnt captured role it acc has in ppls spirtual lives

Question 27

anthony flew weakness

Answer 27

• negatives ultimately amount to nothing, we are left with no clear image of what God is – “the death of a thousand qualifications.”

Question 28

wr inge criticism

Answer 28

• says we cannot get rid of descriptions of god because we then lose the link between humans + world,
• =making worship too difficult and almost pointless

Question 29

pierre chardon

Answer 29

• said that we try to describe love even though we don’t really know what it is. it still has meaning however little it may be