In pairs, attempt to describe an object in the room by saying what it is not…. It is not red…..

In pairs, attempt to describe an object in the room by saying what it is not…. It is not red….. What do we learn from this?

The Via Negativa (Apophatic Way)

Learning Outcomes To be able explain what is meant by the via negativa. To be able to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the via negativa.

The via negativa (Apophatic Way) In negative theology it is accepted that the Divine is ineffable (too great or too extreme to be expressed in words.) They believe that all words must be denied in order to understand ultimate reality. It is possible to talk about God, by not saying what He is, but by saying what he is not. Scholars argue that every positive quality attributed to God (the via positiva or cataphatic way) such as God is all loving and all good, must always be balanced by the recognition that human language is inadequate when trying to describe the attributes of God.

Pseudo-Dionysius He is a key thinker of the via negativa and argues that the divine names do not literally describe God but point to God He was a mystic and took Moses as representing the mystical tradition. Moses received the 10 commandments but in order to do so he approached God through the cloud. But the closer Moses got to God it seems that he saw less. Like Moses he argues, the soul of the mystic enters the darkness of God where it remains speechless, united in passivity, with him who is completely unknowable.

Maimonides He was a Jewish Philosopher. He argued that human beings can know that God exists but not know anything about God, because God is not like human beings. For example God does not feel emotions. He suggested that this way of talking about God is found in the Jewish scriptures where God is described as being 'I am who I am' he is beyond description.

Think, pair, share A: Via negativa B: Dionysius A: Maimonides B: equivocal

Via Negativa Read the notes on the via Negativa and summarise them in 5 key sentences: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Stretch yourself: Find out what the middle way is? How does it relate to religious language?

The Via Negativa Research and complete the boxes! 1) What is the Via Negativa? 2) Why do some philosophers prefer the Via Negativa approach? 3) Find two strengths and two weaknesses of the Via Negativa. 4) Describe God using the Via Negativa. Stretch yourself: Find out what the middle way is? How does it relate to religious language?

Analysis of the Via Negativa... Strengths of Via Negativa Weaknesses of Via Negativa Sort the cards into strengths and weaknesses…

It prevents anthropomorphic statements being make about God Brian Davis criticised Maimonides by say that only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is. E.g. How useful is it to say what God is not. The Via Negativa claims that no positive statement about God can be made. Surely that in itself must be a positive statement? The Via Negativa is not a true reflection of how religious people speak of God. They do not talk in the negative but rather seek positive knowledge of what God is. Used on its own, the Via Negativa way does not distinguish theism from atheism. To speak only negatively of God is to deny him altogether. It can be seen as more respectful. We are not reducing God to our level of understanding. It still results in a limited understanding. What are we actually left with if all we can talk about are negative statements? Many mystics throughout history have supported the apophatic way when talking about God. Some argue that the Via Negativa is the best way for conveying the idea of a transcendent God

Evaluation Strengths It prevents anthropomorphic statements being make about God It can be seen as more respectful. We are not reducing God to our level of understanding. Many mystics throughout history have supported the apophatic way when talking about God. Some argue that the Via Negativa is the best way for conveying the idea of a transcendent God Weaknesses It still results in a limited understanding. What are we actually left with if all we can talk about are negative statements? Brian Davis criticised Maimonides by say that only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is. E.g. How useful is it to say what God is not. The Via Negativa is not a true reflection of how religious people speak of God. They do not talk in the negative but rather seek positive knowledge of what God is. The Via Negativa claims that no positive statement about God can be made. Surely that in itself must be a positive statement? Used on its own, the Via Negativa way does not distinguish theism from atheism. To speak only negatively of God is to deny him altogether.

Your opinion? Summarise the Via Negativa in one sentence. What Bible story does Dionysius use to support this approach? What do you think Christians would say about the Via Negativa? What do you think of the Via Negativa?

Look up the middle way for homework! Research Look up the middle way for homework!