Via Negativa: A Way of Talking to God

Vla Negatlva Is a expression of singing more or less(predicate) idol In only shun terms. For example, divinity fudge Is non mortal or idol is not humankind. Both of these posit what god is not, instead of what he is. This is because our knowledge of theology is limited by our delimited human dread, on that pointfore. as graven image is out of this Universe, we look it extremely hard to twaddle close to him. Saint Augustine said If you comprehend, it is not paragon. If you be able to comprehend, It is because you mistake fewthing else for god. Vla Negatlva allows us to analyze divinity fudge to things within our Universe that we understand, allowing s a sense of recognition with God, bring forward not allowing us to reach a full understanding. This simple recognition Is purposeful enough for many, Including the like of Maimonides and Pseudo-Dionysius. Other philosophers entrust that this negative way of speaking around God, is not the only meaty way to talk of him. These will be discussed further within the es regularise. Moses Maimonides said that Via Negativa was the only au sotic way to speak of God.God is transcendent, so it is unfeasible to narrate what God is, we dont know. He herefore contumacious the only way we could speak of him, Is to talk In negatives. He gave the example of God is not a human being. This Is because he Is transcendent, so assnot have a body. Maimonides hopes that by giving positive brains to God, we atomic number 18 impenetrable God to our human level of understanding. terminology like good or loving, which atomic number 18 often used to describe God, are exclusively are interpretations of those words, God is transcendent so in no way is he confined to this basic understanding. sing Via Positiva is wrong and disrespectful. However, Maimonides agrees that one positive tatement flush toilet be do about God, and this is that he lasts, this is because the building block ruler of Vla Neg ativa is based on the head that God exists. Pseudo- Dionysius follows the same belief as Maimonides, also stating that God is beyond confidence and beyond denial, meaning that some(prenominal) you say about God, even if negative, doesnt ultimately tell us what God Is, It scarce provides us with spiritual understanding of Him.This way of negatively speaking still allows us to acknowledge God as good. Even If we say God Is not good, this can made that God Is more than ust good, he whitethorn be wholly perfect So this account of speaking still allows for God being transcendent. It also accepts the concomitant that the finite cannot get a full-strength moil of the infinite. However, there are a hardly a(prenominal) Issues with this mountain. This theory simple assumes that there is a God to talk about when there is no proof of this some believe that the fact we cannot describe God, suggests there Is not anything to be descrlblng.If we were to only ever talk about target areas in a negative manner, we would never grasp truly what an object was, only what it was not. Finally, many religious large number believe that it is important to absorb God as positive and good, so Via Negativa removes this idea for the religious followers. Other philosophers take the realize opposite view of religious wording, apothegm there is absolutely no pregnant way to talk about God. This view was taken by the capital of Austria racing circuit who believed that only analytic propositions and synthetic propositions 1 OF3 are meanlngTul. Analytic Decause tne Knowledge comes tnrougn sensible reasoning, eg. he man was dead, so was not alive synthetic beliefs because they can b proven o be true or false, so there significantness can easily be shown, eg. The water is 27 degrees. The capital of Austria Circle followed the Verification doctrine this suggested that only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful, one that can be verify by sense experience. Meaningful l anguage involves discussing things that exist only in reality. consequently God does not fit into this household since he exists outside of our reality. Simply put, the Vienna Circle believe that there is no meaningful way to discuss talk.However, the principle allows historical facts to be meaningful, as they ould be verified at the time. in that respectfore, could not some of Gods existence be verified? For example, savior was raised from the dead, is a historical fact and was verified by many at the time. There is room for God to exist within the principle, so their idea was weak. There are also issues with the fact that the principle itself is not verifiable, so therefore is a bunch of meaningless opinions. Hereby the Vienna Circle and their ideas are often overlooked. capital of Minnesota Tillich is a philosopher of symbolism.He believes that symbols open up ealms of understanding that we often cannot access. A symbols stands for something new(prenominal) than whatever is represented, he gives the example of the American tholepin not only does it represent America, further it shows the unity and the strength of the nation. These secondary meanings are often things that we would struggle to explain, but a symbols makes it easy for us to recognise them and then display them to others. Another example is a simple bop boldness that heart can mean a tidy sum of things too many different people, Justice, peace, love, resort Symbols allow personal nderstanding.Tillich therefore believes that symbols can be used to talk about God in a meaningful way. He suggests that piety and God are things of Ultimate Concern, things that we should strive to understand. God is a representation of many things like Justice, love and infinity. We struggle to understand these things normally, but trust symbolises these things and allows us to understand. Therefore, religious faith is a way of accepting these symbols, providing a immense deal of meaning to God. Tillich then suggests that God can be spoken about in a meaningful way, by sing symbols to explain many of his know features.However, people find issues with this idea, mainly that religion is symbolising other things and isnt really in existence. It appears to lower Gods baron by simply saying that he is used as an object of representation, rather than of his own gravid importance. Many religious people disfavour this view, saying that God is the ultimate power and should not be lowered to much(prenominal) standards. There are many other theories on how to speak of God and whether it is meaningful or not Aquinas view on analogy, Hares blik but I find Tillichs view on eligious language to be the best.