Negation, otherwise known as via negativa is the idea that you can only
describe God through negative terms. I will use the ideas from Philosophers
such as Pseudo Dionysius Aquinas and Maimonides. My argument is that
negation is not the best way to approach theological language, I will be
arguing against the apophatic way and for the cataphatic way.
Pseudo Dionysius argues that God is beyond human comprehension. We
cannot use literal language to describe God as it diminishes him and it’s
disrespectful. He calls this “the cloud of unknowing”. Aquinas, who supports
the cataphatic way, would argue against Pseudo Dionysius and say that the
use of analogical language comes closer to describing God. This is a strong
argument as the method of analogy invites us to describe God in a similar
way to the method used in the Bible. For example, he often used parables to
describe the nature of his kingdom, e.g., “the kingdom of God...is like a
mustard seed”.
Aquinas believes the positive way is to be used through analogy. He believed
analogy sits between univocal and equivocal theories of language. Evidence
of this is when language used for God has a partial resemblance to its normal
day use, for example when we say “God is love” as found in the gospel of
John. A follower of the negative way, might respond and say if language
when used for God is only partially the same as everyday language then how
far can we stretch its meaning? For example, if someone says “God is my
shepherd” people may misinterpret it as it’s subjective. Aquinas would say
that this is a weak argument as if we cannot use language to define God
then theology becomes pointless. Theology is defined as ‘the study of the
nature of God and religious belief’ so if we cannot use language to define
God for fear of other misinterpreting then the whole purpose of theology
becomes in vain.
The negative way provides a humble approach to defining God. Humility is a
central aspect of Christian theology and thus, trying to understand God is
deemed prideful. Apophaticisim respects the transcendence and seniority of
God. This is seen in the case of Maimonides who talks about the “impropriety
of ascribing to God any positive attitudes.” A response to this is that the
apophatic way is not a true reflection of how religious leaders speak about
God. This is even the case for religious scripture, for example the Bible. In
the Bible God is spoken about in positive ways. E.g. “God is good” This is a
strong argument, cataphatic theology allows a way for believers to speak
with non-believers about God. This allows Christians to evangelise for
describe God through negative terms. I will use the ideas from Philosophers
such as Pseudo Dionysius Aquinas and Maimonides. My argument is that
negation is not the best way to approach theological language, I will be
arguing against the apophatic way and for the cataphatic way.
Pseudo Dionysius argues that God is beyond human comprehension. We
cannot use literal language to describe God as it diminishes him and it’s
disrespectful. He calls this “the cloud of unknowing”. Aquinas, who supports
the cataphatic way, would argue against Pseudo Dionysius and say that the
use of analogical language comes closer to describing God. This is a strong
argument as the method of analogy invites us to describe God in a similar
way to the method used in the Bible. For example, he often used parables to
describe the nature of his kingdom, e.g., “the kingdom of God...is like a
mustard seed”.
Aquinas believes the positive way is to be used through analogy. He believed
analogy sits between univocal and equivocal theories of language. Evidence
of this is when language used for God has a partial resemblance to its normal
day use, for example when we say “God is love” as found in the gospel of
John. A follower of the negative way, might respond and say if language
when used for God is only partially the same as everyday language then how
far can we stretch its meaning? For example, if someone says “God is my
shepherd” people may misinterpret it as it’s subjective. Aquinas would say
that this is a weak argument as if we cannot use language to define God
then theology becomes pointless. Theology is defined as ‘the study of the
nature of God and religious belief’ so if we cannot use language to define
God for fear of other misinterpreting then the whole purpose of theology
becomes in vain.
The negative way provides a humble approach to defining God. Humility is a
central aspect of Christian theology and thus, trying to understand God is
deemed prideful. Apophaticisim respects the transcendence and seniority of
God. This is seen in the case of Maimonides who talks about the “impropriety
of ascribing to God any positive attitudes.” A response to this is that the
apophatic way is not a true reflection of how religious leaders speak about
God. This is even the case for religious scripture, for example the Bible. In
the Bible God is spoken about in positive ways. E.g. “God is good” This is a
strong argument, cataphatic theology allows a way for believers to speak
with non-believers about God. This allows Christians to evangelise for
