via negativa

Question 1

apophatic & kataphatic language

Answer 1

apophatic: denial of a positive description of God hence the via negative -> the ‘negative way’
kataphatic: uses positive terms about God (opposite to apophatic)

Question 2

the via negativa

Answer 2

• some argue we can only speak of God if we use negative terms to explain what God is not
• equivocal understanding - words used to describe God must be used in entirely different way to everyday use due to God’s nature
• involves speaking of God using only negatives emphasising differences between him & humanity -> he’s immortal, timeless, inaccessible etc
• trying to give him positive attributes is misleading as if we say God is “like a father” we risk giving the wrong idea by conveying God has a body or is male
• using positive terms damages understanding
• anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to something which isn’t human - God

Question 3

Psiedo-Dionysis develop via negativa

Answer 3

• to emphasise transcendence of God & seperate him from any literal description which could limit him
• a mystic which means he thought he could experience God in a personal way
• suggest that God is nameless but ‘has the names of everything that is’ -> follows broad sense of God not just as a creator but as involved creatively within everything

Question 4

how did Maimonides further develop understanding of via negativa

Answer 4

• insisted god wasn’t comparable to anything else and to say god is most powerful being means it can be compared to humans thus reducing him to a thing that can be measured against all else
• so adopted a negative theology which ‘describes’ god by accumulating all negatives
  negative attributes bring us closer to knowledge/understanding of god

Question 5

strengths of via negativa

Answer 5

• avoids problem of anthropomorphism as it’s focus is on God’s transcendence. we won’t limit him with humanly attributes

Question 6

weakness of via negativa

Answer 6

• bible describes god in positive terms and the three terms of The father, The Son and The Holy Spirit but if we can’t describe God as a father then we cant use the three
• calims its possible to approach some kind of understanding of God by saying what something is not. Brian Davies says “for only saying what something is gives no indication of what it actually is”
• lacks practicality regarding religion. is it possible to worship a god described entirely negative as people often wish to say positive things about their god