The only way in which meaningful statements can be made about God is the Via Negativa
The via negativa basically means the way of the negative, the definition of the via negativa is that God is only spoken in negative terms by saying what he is not, an example of this is that ‘God is not a bully.’ I don’t think that this is the only way that you can talk about God and this is the ethical debate that this essay will look to discuss, this idea came initially from the followers of Plato.
The via negativa accepts that statements about God cannot be accurately made as God is utterly different and greater than we can comprehend. I agree with this as no one alive has seen God and can describe him to us, this means that he can’t be accurately told to us. To say that ‘God is good’ means something completely different to saying ‘Paul is good’. However rather than having no possible knowledge of God, it is argued that negative statements can be made; in other words, we can say what God is not. I still don’t think that this is a good way to talk about God because if we can’t describe him possibly then how can we describe him negatively? And this is what I think is the via negativa’s biggest flaw.
The supporters of the via negativa argue that language when applied to God is equivocal meaning that it is open to more than one interpretation. Although it is quite easy to say that God is good or merciful, it is another thing to know what the phrase could mean when applied to God. It would mean something completely different to the meaning when applied to a human being, however we can make some statements about what God is not. I think that they have a point when mentioning you can’t compare God to Humans as they are completely different to each other.
The title of the question states that the via negativa is the only way statements about God can be made, however I don’t think that this is true as the main example of statements being made about God are found in the Bible, where God is described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, these are all
The via negativa accepts that statements about God cannot be accurately made as God is utterly different and greater than we can comprehend. I agree with this as no one alive has seen God and can describe him to us, this means that he can’t be accurately told to us. To say that ‘God is good’ means something completely different to saying ‘Paul is good’. However rather than having no possible knowledge of God, it is argued that negative statements can be made; in other words, we can say what God is not. I still don’t think that this is a good way to talk about God because if we can’t describe him possibly then how can we describe him negatively? And this is what I think is the via negativa’s biggest flaw.
The supporters of the via negativa argue that language when applied to God is equivocal meaning that it is open to more than one interpretation. Although it is quite easy to say that God is good or merciful, it is another thing to know what the phrase could mean when applied to God. It would mean something completely different to the meaning when applied to a human being, however we can make some statements about what God is not. I think that they have a point when mentioning you can’t compare God to Humans as they are completely different to each other.
The title of the question states that the via negativa is the only way statements about God can be made, however I don’t think that this is true as the main example of statements being made about God are found in the Bible, where God is described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, these are all