Negative theology

Negative theology, also known as the Via Negativa (Lat. for "Negative Way") and Apophatic theology, is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God in terms of what may not be said about God. In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is.

Adherents of negative theology hold that God, by definition, is that which is utterly beyond this universe and outside the bounds of what humans can understand. Rather than producing straightforward, positive assertions about the nature of God, it speaks by way of negation. Examples of statements made by those adhering to negative theology include:

In other words, God's essence cannot be spoken of, and may be described as ineffable. It can only be compared to what it is not. In this view, it is not necessary or even possible to know the essence of God; knowledge of God is true knowledge, when it is limited to what is revealed, and does not presume to venture beyond this.

Contents
1 In the Christian tradition
2 In the Jewish tradition
3 In Eastern religions
4 External links and resources

In the Christian tradition

The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists.

In contrast, making positive statements about the nature of God, which occurs in most other forms of Christian theology, is sometimes called 'cataphatic theology'.

Negative theology played an important role early in the history of Christianity. Three theologians who emphasized the importance of negative theology to an orthodox understanding of God, were Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great. John of Damascus employed it when he wrote that positive statements about God reveal "not the nature, but the things around the nature." It continues to be prominent in Eastern Christianity (see Gregory Palamas), and is used to balance cataphatic theology. Apophatic statements are crucial to much theology in Orthodox Christianity.

In contrast, some traditions in Christianity make prolific use of a concept called analogia entis (Analogy of being). By use of the analogy of being, known things and ideas are conceptually compared or projected toward a limiting concept which comprehends all possible, derivative or lesser versions of that ultimate idea. By finding relevant similarity and irrelevant dissimilarity, something of the being of God can be known. Apophatic theology is critical of this approach, presupposing that it is doomed to result in false, idolatrous conclusions, when applied to the discovery of the being of God.

In the Jewish tradition

In Jewish belief, God is defined as the Creator of the universe: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1); similarly, "I am God, I make all things" (Isaiah 44:24). God, as Creator, is by definition separate from the physical universe and thus exists outside of space and time. God is therefore absolutely different from anything else, and is, in consequence, held to be totally unknowable. It is for this reason that we cannot make any direct statements about God

Bahya ibn Paquda shows that our inability to describe God is similairly related to the fact of His absolute unity. God, as the entity which is "truly One" (האחד האמת), must be free of properties and is thus unlike anything else and indescribable; see Divine simplicity. This idea is developed fully in later Jewish philosophy, especially in the thought of the medieval rationalists such as Maimonides and Samuel ibn Tibbon.

It is understood that although we cannot describe God directly, it is possible to describe Him indirectly via His attributes (תוארים). The “negative attributes” relate to God Himself, and specify what He is not. The “attributes of action”, on the other hand, do not describe God directly, rather His interaction with creation [1].

"God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents, which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living - it is not dead; ...it is the first - its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will - it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One - there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself - and not of His actions - the negation of the opposite." (Maimonides Guide to the Perplexed, 1:58)

In line with this formulation, attributes commonly used in describing God in Rabbinic literature, in fact refer to the "negative attributes" - omniscience, for example, refers to non-ignorance; omnipotence to non-impotence; unity to non-plurality, eternity to non-temporality. Examples of the “attributes of action” are God as Creator, Revealer, Redeemer, Mighty and Merciful [2]. Similarly, God’s perfection is generally considered an attribute of action. Joseph Albo (Ikkarim 2:24) points out that there are a number of attributes that fall under both categories simultaneously.

Since two methods are used to speak of God, there are times when the two conflict, giving rise to paradoxes in Jewish philosophy. In these cases, two descriptions of the same phenomenon appear contradictory, whereas, in fact, the difference is merely one of perspective: one description takes the viewpoint of the "attributes of action" and the other, of the "negative attributes". See the paradoxes described under Free will, Divine simplicity and Tzimtzum.

In Eastern religions

Negative theology is present in the Upanishads of Hinduism, when Hindu Vedantic theologians speak of the nature of Brahman. Many East Asian traditions present something very similar to the apophatic approach: for example, the Tao Te Ching, the source book of the Chinese Taoist tradition, asserts in its first statement: the Tao ("way" or "truth") that can be described is not the Tao.

External links and resources

See also: Negative theology, 4th century, Abstraction, Aryeh Kaplan, Bahya ibn Paquda, Basil the Great, Brahman, Cappadocian, Contradiction, Divine simplicity