Negative Theology

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator:Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China
Negative Theology

Post by mdsimpson92 » Thu May 05, 2011 9:20 pm

Essentially, Negative theology is a method of mysticism that deals with understanding God not by saying what God is, but rather what God isn't.

Meta, I think you have more background in it. Though it does remind me of "the Dao that can be spoken of is not the Dao."
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Negative Theology

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri May 06, 2011 7:35 am

Perhaps, and that actually reminds me of Paul Tillich saying we might have to abandon the term "God" due to the fact that that can mean several differentn things.

Of course we can use terms to denote what interpretation of the divine we actually are talking about. Panentheism for instance.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Negative Theology

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri May 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Actually perhaps "jarring" is not the right word. Perhaps the better word is clear and well defined terminology. I can defininately understand how the word "God" has so much baggage. That is probably why people like Tillich used terms like "ground of being" it conjures an image but it works as a metaphor for what their interpretation of the divine is.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Negative Theology

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri May 06, 2011 2:18 pm

Speusippus wrote: Is this negative theology? It's close in a way, but I don't think it is. Negative theology says there's something about the nature of God that makes facts about him inherently inexpressible. I don't claim that facts about God are inherently inexpressible (in fact I think that within the church we can express truths about God, using the word 'god' even, perfectly well) but rather that it has become impossible to express facts about God in public. It has become impossible for people to understand each other (except perhaps within the church) when they use the word 'god'.
This is when I get sloppy in my reading. you already have covered my statements. I have no issue so far. Negative theology is close, but that is rather more of a tool that is used. like "god does not lack." it works its way around.

Granted that also depends on how you view the divine. I am personally a panentheist.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Negative Theology

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 06, 2011 6:08 pm

My God, you are spamming yourself.

No, withdrawing verbiage about religious belief and attempting to let your light shine through actions only is not negative theology. It's an interesting thought though because it's much Frtitz Mouthner's point about concrete gesture. Language becomes too abstract then we must withdraw into concrete gesture. That's a theme taken up in Joyce, Finnegan's Wake.

Negative theology is counterbalanced by mystical union. It's the idea that God is beyond our understanding. We can't say what God is so we say what God is not. We can't show you a donut hole so we show what's around the hole.

the other side of the coin is you don't talk about what God is but what he's not but experience God directly in mystical union so you know by experience what God is.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Negative Theology

Post by met » Fri May 06, 2011 8:44 pm

I remember reading David Tracey'swritings on negative/apophatic theology. That was around 2004... geez, seven years ago already.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Negative Theology

Post by URBILD » Sat May 07, 2011 12:45 am

Classical theology in a nutshell:

A.) Human knowledge (i..e., neo-platonism's version of human knowledge) is always balanced with what we know about God through B.) revelation. (i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures)

IOW, The timeless God who is above all attributes, is ALSO the personal God of the Jews, who interacts in history, has emotions, attributes etc, etc...

Now, the ordinary heathen would say that Classical Theology involves a massive contradiction.

So, CT plays the mystery card .

A. and B. are not really at odds with each other, .....it's merely the limitation of human language that makes it seem so. :? :lol:

and if that doesn't work,....we send doubters to the rack!!! :twisted: :D

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Negative Theology

Post by mdsimpson92 » Sat May 07, 2011 9:49 am

URBILD wrote:Classical theology in a nutshell:

A.) Human knowledge (i..e., neo-platonism's version of human knowledge) is always balanced with what we know about God through B.) revelation. (i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures)

IOW, The timeless God who is above all attributes, is ALSO the personal God of the Jews, who interacts in history, has emotions, attributes etc, etc...

Now, the ordinary heathen would say that Classical Theology involves a massive contradiction.

So, CT plays the mystery card .

A. and B. are not really at odds with each other, .....it's merely the limitation of human language that makes it seem so. :? :lol:

and if that doesn't work,....we send doubters to the rack!!! :twisted: :D
Sorry Meta, your right I was spamming.
I remember Hartshorne criticising Aquinas for "paying God metaphysical compliments" by giving God attributes like absolute omnipotence and total omniscience ect.

But I don't think that neo-platonism would count as classical theism, at least not according to Stanford Encyclopedia. Then again "The One" was not a very personal deity in Neoplatonism.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Negative Theology

Post by met » Sat May 07, 2011 10:53 am

Metacrock wrote: Language becomes too abstract then we must withdraw into concrete gesture. That's a theme taken up in Joyce, Finnegan's Wake.
Thats a cool thought. And absolutely right, it is - though i never heard or thought of that before.....
Negative theology is counterbalanced by mystical union.
Counterbalanced or complimented? How do we find the strength/inspiration to "withdraw into concrete gesture" (since talk is almost always much easier than action) if not within mystical experiences?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Negative Theology

Post by met » Sat May 07, 2011 11:02 am

URBILD wrote:Classical theology in a nutshell:

A.) Human knowledge (i..e., neo-platonism's version of human knowledge) is always balanced with what we know about God through B.) revelation. (i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures)

IOW, The timeless God who is above all attributes, is ALSO the personal God of the Jews, who interacts in history, has emotions, attributes etc, etc...

Now, the ordinary heathen would say that Classical Theology involves a massive contradiction.

So, CT plays the mystery card .

A. and B. are not really at odds with each other, .....it's merely the limitation of human language that makes it seem so. :? :lol:

and if that doesn't work,....we send doubters to the rack!!! :twisted: :D
That's very Western. Negative theology, otoh, mostly comes out of (or at least back from) the East, doesnt it? (I mean, the RCC silenced Meister Ekhart for saying apophatic type stuff.)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply