"Negative
theology, as I understand it, is mostly an issue of
semantics. Sometimes referred to as the “
via negativa”, or “
apophatic theology”, it exists both as a companion to, and
critique of
affirmative theology, which attempts to describe the nature of “
God”. In most
monotheistic theologies this positive method proclaims the
deity as an
omniscient,
omnipotent entity,
good,
just and loving. It is common to hear “God is
love”, “God is
eternal”, “God is
everything.” But since it is also assumed as a
given that “God”
transcends all human experience, one therefore must come to the understanding that these declarations are undermined by the limitations of
language, the limitations of
thought, to describe that which cannot be experienced. Human
concepts are derived from human
experience (although one could also say that we cannot experience that which we are incapable of conceptualizing).
Negative theology is basically one very simple
idea. One cannot say anything about what God
is. One can only say what God isn’t. We can say that God is not “
finite”. We can say that God is not “good”, meaning by this not that God is “bad”, but simply that God is not “
good”. The important thing here is that all these things that God is
not are in
quotations. To say that God is not good, and not finite (minus the quotations), sets up a
paradox, a
contradiction inherent in the
definition of “God as Everything”. If God is everything, then It must be finite as well as infinite, evil as well as good, mustn’t It? If we say that God is not “everything” we’re doing slightly better, but we’re getting dangerously close to imposing
limitations on the
deity. We enter into an
ontological semantic chaos, a confusion which brings us to the end of Negative Theology Part One."
