The Apothatic Way

• Via Negativa (apophatic way) argues that since we can’t understand God, the only meaningful way to talk about God is to say what God is not.
• Via negativa: the argument that theological language is best approached by negation. We should use the via negativa (apophemi-to deny) and say what God is not.
• ‘With whom, then, will you compare God? To what image will you liken him?” - Isaiah 40:18.
• “No one has seen or can see God, the only begotten Son… he has declared him” - John 1:18
• Pseudo-Dionysius

  Late 5th to early 6th century Christian theologian and philosopher. He wrote The Mystical Theology, where he emphasised that God is “beyond all being and knowledge”.
• God is “beyond all being and knowledge”. - Pseudo-Dionysius
• Pseudo-Dionysius believes that :

  -Humans need to ensure that they see God as a mystery or they will miss the point and end up with a small idea of God.

  -We can only know God when we go beyond the realms of rationality, enter the unknown ‘Cloud of unknowing’.
• Peter Vardy: For humans to “talk of God is the equivalent of a goldfish talking about the world of dry land”

  -A Goldfish is unable to talk about dry land as they have not experienced it, in the same way, humans are not truly able to talk about God, due to the epistemological distance which was a result of the fall. (Postlapsarian), they is a lack of divine knowledge
• God is “beyond all being and knowledge”. -Pseudo-Dionysius
• "We can only know God when we go beyond the realms of rationality, enter the unknown ‘Cloud of unknowing"
• John Scotus Eriugena

  Eriugena acknowledges the transcendence of God, he posits that “God is beyond all meaning and intelligence”. at an epistemic distance from God, the only means of verification of God is done eschatologically. God is a mystery to all humans, making us unable to comprehend him.
• John Scotus Eriugena argues that God is a mystery to all humans we are unable to comprehend him.

  When Eriugena says, "God is not anything”, he does not mean that there is no God, rather he means that God cannot be said to exist in any way that other things exist. Erigiena uses apophatic- via negative language to argue that God is other. 

  -This stops us from anthropomorphising God and labelling human attributes to God. 

  God cannot be said to exist in the way that other things exist
• Maimonides argues that one can come to an understanding of a ship through the use of negation e.g it is not a solid. One can also use the same method to come to an understanding of God through identifying what God is not. E.g he is not in space or time. 

  Maimonides uses the ship analogy to explain that just in the same way that one can come to the understanding of what a ship is through negative explanation e.g it is not solid. In the

  same way we can know who God is by stating what he is not e.g he is not in this space or time
• “There is nothing both literal and positive that we can say about God on the basis of any reasoning not prompted by the Divine revelation in the scriptures. And even then . . . Most of what we can say informatively is metaphorical, allegorical and untranslatable into

  literal positive truths" - Maimonides
• “Silence is praise to thee” (Psalm 65:2)
• As human language is limiting and can never truly depict God, it is better to remain silent, as opposed to undermining the true nature of God.
• Maimonides argues that except from the Divine Revelation that has been provided by Scripture. It is better to use negation, as opposed to filling gaps in which misconceptions emerge as human language is limiting and cannot accurately depict who God truly is.
• Moses Maimonides is clear that by using via negative to talk about God, he means that he means God is incomparable.
• Plotinus used the ‘Via Negativa’ to describe the ‘Form of the Good’. The ‘Form of the Good’, as seen in the ‘Analogy of the Cave’ was something transcendent and above the comprehension of the unenlightened prisoners, representing ‘God’.  Plotinus argued that if we used cataphatic language, we wouldn’t be able to describe something as supreme and transcendent as the ‘Form of the Good’, which was outside the materialistic world. Within this analogy, this form of the good is something transcendent and above comprehension of the unenlightened prisoner. 
• • Davis:

  Only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it is. 

  -if i were asked what a sphere is, and someone replied with a  cube, I am still unaware of what a sphere actually is . It misleads people about the nature of God. Negative statements are not always going to arrive at the correct solution

  —-Would refute the Analogy of the Ship: i have still gained no understanding of what God is.
• • Flew:

   If we only speak about God through utilising negatives, then there is little difference from explaining nothingness.

  He would argue that via negative is pointless
• Strengths of Via negativa

  • We understand our limitations of limited God, as we are limited as finite beings.
  • It is biblically supported - Isaiah 40:18 + John 
  • It stops us from anthropomorphizing God by ensuring that we do not apply any concept we humans can understand to God.
  • The Apophatic tradition is more than just about denial. This means moving beyond the human finite language that we use together and using language that is more in proportion to God’s nature. 
  • Preserve the idea of the otherness of God-it is more respectful to the divine
• Weaknesses of via negativa

  • Davis: Only saying what something is not does not indicate what it is. It misleads people about the nature of God. Negative statements are not always going to arrive at the correct solution
  • Flew: If we only speak about God through utilising negatives, then there is little difference from explaining nothingness.
  • Hicks argues that we can make positive statements about God through these interpretations of analogies from biblical scripture. 
  • God even describes himself in positive terms: ”I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” (Exodus 20:5).