4 of 27

Write now Article Tools

Before inquiring into whether or God not "exists," we must attempt to become clear over who/what it is our word "God" refers to. Some, of course, have insisted that the entire concept is literally meaningless. This argument was particularly popular in the mid-20th century (via the Vienna Circle, etc). However, this article will primarily focus on those who find sense in the word "God" and have debated the various ways we might define such a notion.

Regardless of religious tradition, there have generally been two main approaches used when attempting to define God. The first is apophatic, or, as known in Christianity, the "via negativa." This negative theology attempts to define God by what he is not. For example, orthodox theism says God is not limited, not finite, not created, and so forth.

Compare this, then, with cataphatic thought, or the "via positiva." Positive theology is willing to make claims about what/who God actually is. For example, one might say that God is omnipotent, God is infinite, God is eternal, and so forth.

Both traditions have longstanding historical roots. Apophatic theology has tended to be less popular, and has traditionally been the domain of mystics. More recently, the apophatic mantel has been taken up by deconstructionists. Following Jacques Derrida, theologians like Mark C. Taylor and John Caputo have pursued a "religion without religion" that ceases to make definite, absolute claims about what/who God is. They point to phrases like that of St. Anselm of Canterbury - God as "that which none greater can be conceived" - to show that whatever we say of God, he is always more, greater, beyond.

Cataphatic theology, on the other hand, has traditionally had more mainstream followers. The Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox) have seen in the Incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth a divine unveiling, the unknown become known. They may join the via negativa to some extent, but also contend that some of God has been made understandable and knowable to humans. Expectedly, systematic theologies of all stripes have leaned in this direction.

Both traditions also wrestle, to some degree or another, with the nature of religious language. The question is whether our talk of God is "univocal," "equivocal," or "analogical." Univocal speech is that which has to a one-to-one correspondence in concept. For example, we might say that "God is love" where God's love is essentially the same (love qua love), only more/deeper/stronger/purer.

Equ ivocal language, on the other hand, would claim that our concept of "love" has no relation to God's. When we say "God is love" we must realize that this means something completely other than what we mean by human love. Naturally, negative theology has tended in this direction, thus their definitions of God as what he is not.

Lastly, analogical language that says that our concepts do not match exactly with God's, but are true by analogy. The analogical tradition would say that human love is incomparable to God's, but we can know/understand some of what God's love is like because of our own flawed version. Historically this has been the dominant understanding (in the Christian religion, popularized and articulated by St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas) as it strikes a middle-ground between univocal and equivocal speech.

Learn more about this author, Kevin Cole.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Attempting to define God?
We want to hear your view. Write now!