The apophatic way - RL1

Question 1

INRO - define

Answer 1

Uses negative language to describe God

Question 2

Section 1: AO1

APOTHATIC

Answer 2

tries to demonstrate that religious language can only convey meaningful statements about God through negative terms about what God is not e.g. ‘immortal’, ‘invisible’, and ‘inaccessible. All words applied to God are equivocal – open to more than one meaning

Question 3

Section 1: AO2 FOR

APOTHATIC

Answer 3

Does not misrepresent God as it does not limit him to human language, which may give people the wrong impression of his attributes. When we say that ‘God is good’ we cannot help but understand the word ‘good’ in terms of human goodness. Yet God is not ‘good’ in this sense as his goodness is beyond human comprehension
-Using the apophatic way it does not anthropomorphise God as it under

Pseudo- Dionysius in his work mystic theology’ argued that the apophatic way was the only way to talk about God when considering human fallibility against an infinite God.
-Rational as how can finite beings even begin to comprehend an infinite eternal God – respectful as recognises human limitations

Question 4

Section 1: AO2 AGAINST

APOTHATIC

Answer 4

fails to enable an individual to gain a clear understanding of God as a person has no idea of what is being described as they are only stating everything that God is not. Arguably this is not helpful or useful as it is like depicting a chair as ‘not a table’ which is too vague and not representing the table at all
-Fails to communicate effectively with the non-believer

The apophatic way, while trying to encompass the mystery and unknowability of God, still roots its vocabulary in human ideas: “immortal” is rooted in the human idea of mortality and “timeless” is rooted in the human idea of time.
-Apophatic way fails the purpose of its approach as it begins with human experience to define God, which is what it tried to avoid and the risk of anthropomorphising God.
-Fails communication of on the grounds of RL by both parties

Question 5

Section 2: AO1

MAIMODIES

Answer 5

Moses Maimonides the only positive statement that can be made about God is that he exists. All other statements about God must be negative as otherwise it would be improper and disrespectful. However the negative can still bring us knowledge of God. Analogy of the ship: If we say that the ship is not an accident, a mineral, a natural body then by the tenth statement we will have some knowledge about what the ship is. In the same way the Via Negative allows us to gain some knowledge of God.

Question 6

Section 2: AO2 FOR

MAIMODIES

Answer 6

“God is beyond all meaning and intelligence…no creature can comprehend how or was he is” (John)

Supported by RE – James criteria for RE include how they are ineffable – cannot be placed/ described in ordinary language

Question 7

Section 2: AO2 AGAINST

MAIMODIES

Answer 7

Even if the apophatic way gives some knowledge of God it is incredibly limited in what can be known. It is not clear that in the ship e.g. A ship can be described in the way that he maintains. Even less likely that this method can bring any knowledge of God

The apophatic way is not a true reflection of how religious believers speak or think about God. The scripture of all faiths describe God in positive terms.

Dr Inge: denying any description of God leads to an annihilation of God where we potentially lsoe any connection between God and the world. Flews gardener – idea of a God is not visible / intangible seems to be bear very little difference to their being no God at all

Question 8

Section 3: AO1

SYMBOLS

Answer 8

Theory of Participation – symbolic language participates in what it points to. For example the crucifix is part of what it means to be Christian and symbolic of God’s love and forgiveness. Arguably this enables the religious believer to gain a meaningful and spiritual understanding of God without confining God into language when Gods attributes are beyond human comprehension.

Question 9

Section 3: AO2 FOR

SYMBOLS

Answer 9

Criteria: both believers and non-believers are satisfied, since communication and expression work as people can connect to a symbol and there is little chance of misunderstanding what the symbol means

But by taking away positive language and symbol, people cannot learn about God; if language is merely negative, what are we left with? (Davies). Symbols are entry level to belief and enables the believer to access the epistemic distance between humans and God without defining God.

Question 10

Section 3: AO2 AGAINST

SYMBOLS

Answer 10

God’s nature is unknown thus we have no criterion, better to use negative language to avoid confusions. Indeed Bultmann states the Bible should be stripped of symbols and myths so it can be left with the true essence (kerygma) of faith