Why I Reject a Natural/Supernatural Distinction

[Adrift]

And I have trouble basing my faith on anything less, ie, merely human words and constructs that do not at least point to a greater reality.

I think most believers wouldn't say that their faith is based merely in words and constructs, but in truths. I have no problem saying that my faith is based on the reality of Jesus Christ, and his literal resurrection by a God who is all powerful, all knowing, and morally good. I know these things to be true, not only by way of the evidence of their truthfulness, but by way of the inner working of the Holy Spirit.

I think there's room for some degree of apophatic theology in one's faith walk, but there's something very contradictory about saying something like, "all theological statements about God must be negated."

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say next, because I don't mean to give offense (I know people say that all the time, but I'm being sincere), but it seems to me that there's something sort of slippery about apophaticism. It seems to me like a position an individual can hold, while smugly crossing their arms and saying, "because I make no positive claims about God, I can never be proved wrong". There's something intellectually...off to me about that that I struggle with.

[robrecht]

I think most believers wouldn't say that their faith is based merely in words and constructs, but in truths.

I hope you realize that I have not claimed that most believers would say this. Now the question becomes, how are these truths expressed and is the reality pointed to by these truths greater than what can be comprehended by the human intellect and expressed by human language. I believe God is.

I have no problem saying that my faith is based on the reality of Jesus Christ, and his literal resurrection by a God who is all powerful, all knowing, and morally good. I know these things to be true, not only by way of the evidence of their truthfulness, but by way of the inner working of the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that the God who raised Jesus from the dead and the Holy Spirit can be fully comprehended and described by human intellect and language?

I think there's room for some degree of apophatic theology in one's faith walk, but there's something very contradictory about saying something like, "all theological statements about God must be negated."

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say next, because I don't mean to give offense (I know people say that all the time, but I'm being sincere), but it seems to me that there's something sort of slippery about apophaticism. It seems to me like a position an individual can hold, while smugly crossing their arms and saying, "because I make no positive claims about God, I can never be proved wrong". There's something intellectually...off to me about that that I struggle with.

Why would I be offended by any of this? Apophatic theology and mysticism have a dark side and can easily descend into obscurantism.

[Adrift]

I hope you realize that I have not claimed that most believers would say this. Now the question becomes, how are these truths expressed and is the reality pointed to by these truths greater than what can be comprehended by the human intellect and expressed by human language. I believe God is.

Hmm. I guess I was under the impression that apophatic theology was less about the limitations of language, and more about epistemology.

Do you believe that the God who raised Jesus from the dead and the Holy Spirit can be fully comprehended and described by human intellect and language?

No, of course not. Should that prevent one from making non-metaphorical true statements about God?

Why would I be offended by any of this? Apophatic theology and mysticism have a dark side and can easily descend into obscurantism.

Okay.

[robrecht]

Hmm. I guess I was under the impression that apophatic theology was less about the limitations of language, and more about epistemology.

I think it is about both, at least in a modern context.

No, of course not. Should that prevent one from making non-metaphorical true statements about God?

Prevent, no. Qualify, yes.

[Kelp(p)]

Kelp, it is not meaningful to argue as though God were a part of the created universe. That is just what you are doing here.

Do you believe that God can cause a contradiction? If we can't even speak of God logically, then all theology goes out the window.

[Kelp(p)]

It is true that apophatic theology has sometimes been closely related to neo-Platonic systems of thought.

Sometimes but not unavoidably.

[Kelp(p)]

Hmm. I guess I was under the impression that apophatic theology was less about the limitations of language, and more about epistemology.

Kind of hard to separate the two unless you're a mystic.

[robrecht]

Sometimes but not unavoidably.

Hence my use of the word, "sometimes."

[Kelp(p)]

Hence my use of the word, "sometimes."

Ok.

[Apologiaphoenix]

How can you have pure existence with no properties, though? This is beginning to sound like Plotinus (the ultimate being is pure existence, the next emanation down is pure self-awareness, etc).

What we describe as properties are aspects of being. What does it mean to be without limitation? That's God. I can describe God easily still as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, Love, etc.

[Tassman]

Perhaps the primary meaning of divine simplicity, for those to hold divine simplicity, for example, Thomas Aquinas, is that God cannot be defined, we are unable to analyze his nature into genus and species. The 'non-definition' is worn as a badge of courage by those who hold to some type of apophatic theology. It may not be meaningful to you, but it is very meaningful to others. To say that God is either part of the natural universe or not part of the natural universe is merely to say that we can indeed define God or the extent and breadth of the natural universe. I don't think we can define or delimit either. But if you can, great!

No it's not, as you suggest, meaningful to me. To my mind “apophatic theology” is about the God you have when you don’t have a God. To describe an alleged invisible entity as having no definable properties is to describe nothing at all. It’s not so much a “badge of courage” as the determination to have a God when there’s no credible evidence of one existing. In short, why bother?

I think Adrift ‘s comment in this regard is spot on, namely: “It seems to me like a position an individual can hold, while smugly crossing their arms and saying, “because I make no positive claims about God, I can never be proved wrong". There's something intellectually...off to me about that that I struggle with”. I agree.

[Kelp(p)]

No it's not, as you suggest, meaningful to me. To my mind “apophatic theology” is about the God you have when you don’t have a God. To describe an alleged invisible entity as having no definable properties is to describe nothing at all. It’s not so much a “badge of courage” as the determination to have a God when there’s no credible evidence of one existing. In short, why bother?

I think Adrift ‘s comment in this regard is spot on, namely: “It seems to me like a position an individual can hold, while smugly crossing their arms and saying, “because I make no positive claims about God, I can never be proved wrong". There's something intellectually...off to me about that that I struggle with”. I agree.

Don't forget his reply to Adrift's point:

I think this is too simple of a characterization of apophatic theology. Instead of saying God is nothing more than what I understand by the term 'love', I affirm that God is Love in a mysterious and transcendent way that I will never fully comprehend in this lifetime. We only see now as through a glass darkly, now we know in part, but then we shall know as we ourselves are known and loved by God.

Although probably not based on an a-privativum, isn't 'eternal' already an apophatic term, ie, existing without or outside of time? Or do you think that God being eternal only means that he is very old?

Perhaps a bigger weakness of the way you have posed this question, in my humble opinion, is that you do not seem to be allowing for any theological methodology that purposefully combines both positive and apophatic theology, which is the whole point of the analogical method of Thomas Aquinas. For me, God's immanence is a much bigger mystery than his transcendence.

It seems to me that this definition of apophatic theology is not far from what quantum physicists do. We can't know, or at least don't know currently, exactly what is going on down there. The best we can do is guesses and rough analogies based on what the mathematics point to. And if Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (not to mention Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem) is correct, knowing some things roughly and in part may be all that we can ever do.

[Kelp(p)]

What we describe as properties are aspects of being. What does it mean to be without limitation? That's God. I can describe God easily still as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, Love, etc.

So, since God is pure existence, He is also pure love (a la 1 John), omnipotence, omniscience, etc?