condensed: RL, apophatic and cataphatic

introduction

our language is limited when talking about god. we try to capture in the infinite with the finite. god is infinite and location-less, so how can we, finite and space-bound, understand or describe him? do we limit him when we try? if you do define him, you are anthropomorphising him and blaspheming. ‘king’ or ‘shepherd’ are human ideas.

cognitive and non-cognitive sentences

there are two types of language:

• cognitive: has a true of false response
• non-cognitive: commands, greetings, emotion, music, theatre, poetry

dakwins says religious language is used cognitively, but it is used wrong because it cannot be tested like facts. religious people may argued they mean it like saying that ‘purpose’ exists, it cannot be tested but it is, in a sense, true.

via negativa/apophatic way

pseudo-dionysius put this idea forward in ‘mystical theology’: the via negativa is the belief that words limit our understanding of a transcendent God. therefore instead of saying what god is, we should state what he isn’t, like saying immortal or timeless, to gain understanding. positive terms can be misleading or wrong.

dionysius said that god was ‘beyond assertion’ and ‘every limitation’. no matter how rational we are, we cannot rationalise god. john scotus eurigena adds that ‘god is beyond all meaning and intelligence’.

moses maimonides agrees, arguing that religious language is meaningful when used negatively. he used the example of a ship – by describing what a ship isn’t, we get closer to understanding what a ship is. he warns against anthropomorphising god, and reminds us scripture is not literal.

this approach avoids humanising god and focuses on his transcendency. it also applies at all times unlike analogy or symbol. it doesn’t limit god and allowed for what William James calls the ‘mystical approach‘.

criticisms of via negativa

• Brian Davies says that eliminating negatives means we don’t know if what remains is God or something else
• how can we describe what God isn’t if we have no idea of what he is?
• how can we make judgements of something we haven’t experienced?
• maimonides’s ship example has been criticised because it compares God to an inanimate object rooted in human understanding
• negative statements aren’t helpful or useful in describing things. we would not tell someone what a chair is by describing it as ‘not a table’, this is too vague.
• Antony Flew argues that the negatives amount to nothing – so we are told nothing of God
• how do you know the God you are worshipping if you can only reliably say what he isn’t?
• for religious believers, via negativa contradicts certain statements in holy scripture that describe God positively
• W.R. Inge says we cannot get rid of descriptions of god because we then lose the link between humans and the world, making worship too difficult and almost pointless
• Pierre Chardon 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.

via positiva/cataphatic way

the cataphatic way, positively speaking on god, is supported by scholars like aquinas, augustine and anselm.

but they do not claim that we have any precision. it may be limiting, but our language is positively indicative. the mode of worship that humans naturally use is speech, where the alternative is just silence or mindless humming.