Apophatic way/via negativa

1. God Is Beyond All Language

God is "beyond assertion and denial". God transcends all concepts, categories, and distinctions we can make.

2. Negation Is Not Privation

This is crucial: When we say "God is not living," we don't mean "God is lifeless". Rather, we mean: God is beyond the living/lifeless distinction.

Similarly, when we say "God is not darkness," we're not saying "God is light". We're saying: God transcends the light/darkness distinction entirely.

3. The Goal: Mystical Union Through Unknowing

Accepting the via negativa helps us "break free from our grasping for knowledge of God". This causes an "inactivity of all knowledge" which leads one to be "supremely united to the completely unknown". By this, one "knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing".

Not Intellectual Knowledge: This is not knowledge in the sense of the mind understanding God—that's impossible. It is knowledge gained through "unity" with God—a mystical, experiential connection.

The "Cloud of Unknowing": Medieval mystical text influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius. The metaphor: our intellectual attempts to grasp God create a "cloud" that obscures our spiritual connection. By giving up intellectual understanding, the cloud clears, allowing mystical union.

1. Human Language Is Inadequate for God

The Torah was written by "the sons of men"—in human language. Any attempt to describe God using human language is anthropomorphic (attributing human characteristics to God). This is necessary for the "less intelligent" who need concrete descriptions, but it's a "second-best" approach.

2. Religious Language Is Equivocal

Equivocal language: Words have completely different meanings when applied to different subjects.

When we say "God is good" and "Humans are good," the word "good" means something entirely different in each case. Since we don't know what God is, we don't know what "good" means when applied to God.

3. The Via Negativa Solution

Strength 1: Preserves God's Transcendence

The main strength of the via negativa is that it is true to God's transcendence and otherness. Almost all theologians agree that God is transcendent—beyond human understanding. Rudolf Otto called God "wholly other"—radically different from anything we experience. Augustine commented: "Whatever we can comprehend is not God".

The Via Negativa Honors This: By refusing to make positive claims about God, the via negativa avoids limiting or misrepresenting God. It prevents anthropomorphism (projecting human qualities onto God). It maintains the proper sense of humility and awe before the divine mystery.

Strength 2: Avoids Idolatry

Making positive statements about God using human concepts risks idolatry. Idolatry: Believing earthly, creaturely things are God or represent God. Idolatry can lead to worship of nations, ideologies, or movements. After the Fall, human reason is corrupted and cannot reach God or God's true morality.

Via Negativa's Protection: By saying only what God is not, we avoid confusing God with anything creaturely. We acknowledge that our concepts are inadequate and don't capture God's essence.

Strength 3: Leads to Mystical Union

Pseudo-Dionysius' Argument: The via negativa functions by shutting down our attempt to intellectually grasp God. This frees our mind to develop a more spiritual connection to God. Through "unity" with God, we achieve a knowledge that transcends intellectual understanding.

Support from William James: William James studied mysticism and found that mystical union is universally attested across religions. The via negativa aligns with this universal mystical tradition.

By giving up rational attempts to understand God, we clear away the obstacles to direct spiritual experience. This is a much more defensible sense in which we can get "nearer" to God through negation.

Strength 4: Distinguishes Transcendence from Immanence

Critics point out that the Bible uses positive language about God (e.g., "God is love"). The response makes a distinction between:

Implication: All biblical language about God refers to God's immanence (His actions), not His transcendence (His essence). Therefore, the via negativa remains consistent with Scripture.

Criticism 1: Brian Davies' "God-Shaped Hole"

Brian Davies argues that the via negativa doesn't work the way Maimonides claims. The ship example fails because:

Davies' Conclusion: We don't get closer to describing what God is by saying what He is not. The via negativa is ineffective as a method of gaining knowledge about God.

Criticism 2: Aquinas' Rejection—Not What People Want to Say

Aquinas claims that negative language is "not what people want to say when they talk about God". Talking about God via negativa is not how most religious believers actually want or intend to talk about God. When believers say "God is loving," they mean to affirm something positive about God, not just deny that God is unloving.

Evidence from Worship and Scripture: The religious language you hear during worship and in the Bible is not consistent with the via negativa. Prayers, hymns, and biblical passages overwhelmingly use positive language about God.

Implication: The via negativa is disconnected from actual religious practice and belief. It's a philosophical theory that doesn't reflect how believers actually experience or speak about God.

Criticism 3: Hick's Contradiction

John Hick's Objection: It is a contradiction to say: (1) God is beyond human comprehension, AND (2) God can be known through the Bible.

The via negativa claims God is completely unknowable. But if God can be known through Scripture, storytelling, and symbolic language in the Bible, then the via negativa is wrong. The "only way to talk of God" is not by using negative terms—the Bible shows us we can use positive and symbolic language.

Criticism 4: Tells Us Nothing About God

Saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is. How useful is it to say: "X is not a car, not a dog, not blue, not square"? This tells us nothing about what X actually is.

Applied to God: The via negativa doesn't tell believers anything about God's nature or religious belief. It leaves us with an empty concept—a pure mystery that provides no guidance.

Brian Davies' Version: "Only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is". We need positive content to have meaningful knowledge.

Criticism 5: How Can We Judge What God Is Not?

How can we describe what God isn't if we have no idea what God is? How can we make judgments about something we haven't experienced?

The Logic: To say "God is not X," we must have some concept of what God is. Otherwise, how do we know that "not X" is a true statement about God? But the via negativa claims we have no concept of God. This creates a contradiction.

Response 1: Maimonides vs. Pseudo-Dionysius

Maimonides' version (the ship analogy) may have gone too far. We cannot get "nearer" to knowledge of God through process of elimination the way we can with a ship.

But: Pseudo-Dionysius' approach is more successful. Via negativa functions by shutting down our attempt to intellectually grasp God, which gets in the way of knowing God through "unity" with God.

This is a much more defensible sense in which we can get "nearer" to knowledge of God through negation—not through intellectual understanding, but through mystical experience.

Response 2: Against Aquinas' Criticism

Aquinas' criticism is unsuccessful because Pseudo-Dionysius explains that "unity" with God can be gained once we give up on attempting to understand God through reason.

The spirituality involved in a relationship with God is not only captured but strengthened once we give up on our false and spiritually distracting rational conception of God. What people "want to say" about God may reflect spiritual immaturity. True spiritual maturity involves recognizing God's transcendence and approaching Him through unknowing rather than conceptual knowledge.