Why Study Negative Theology with Simon Oliver
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2013
- Simon Oliver introduces the importance of the notion of 'negative theology': because God is utterly transcendent our normal descriptive language has no meaning and so we can more truly speak about what 'God' is not.
![[TH] GEN vs SEN | FPX vs TH - VALORANT Champions 2024 DAY 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcyH-0LAlhs/mqdefault.jpg)
I am an atheist, and I found this video to be very helpful for my endeavors in academia. Thanks for posting. Not all atheists are like Richard Dawkins. :)
bananimal45 I'm coming across your comment 2 years after you left it and I'm curious about the effect all that time in academia has had on your perspective, if any. Cheers!
Oliver is learned and articulate. In particular, he is one of those rare intellectuals who is able to speak at different levels, or that is my sense. Will be looking for more of his discussions.
The most important thing I took away from this discussion is that God is always greater. That thought I will chew upon for many years to come.
That is the ontological argument
This is enlightening. Thanks for uploading.
This is so inspirational. It ignites something deep inside of me which has existed all my life but have never been able to express. Thank you Simon.
Thank you so much for these videos! I'm a student in theology and I find them very helpful and interesting!
Fantastic... I am predominantly drawn to aphophatic Theology... thank you for this :) it gives me much more comfort in the not knowing rather than the "knowing"
very clearly articulated. thank you!
Simon Oliver gives us the most insightful penetration into negative theology in thirteen minutes I've ever heard. Thank you, Dr. Oliver. Brilliant job! Apophaticism and negative theology represent a revolution in human thinking as significant as Copernicus, Galileo or Newton in cosmology. Both are counter intuitive. And, therefore, require a refinement of our ordinary cognition. Apo. and neg theology are subtle, deep, and illusive but not impossible to approach and benefit from. In fact, it can be a powerful emotional and intellectual experience to writers in the apophatic tradition like Dionysius the Areopagite or Meister Eckhart. The best introduction I've found is volume 1 of William Franke's, On What Cannot Be Said. It is an anthology of the classic formulations of negative theology from the main authors from antiquity up into the seventeeth century. What's more, Franke's introductions give us the direction and context we need for a fuller comprehension.
Another fascinating element of the interview is there is no mention of Eastern Orthodox writings...perhaps in another video...but I think that this presentation is insular to a Western scope.
This is so great! I love Kierkegaards Leap Of Faith system... it explained what was going on within me quite wonderfully
The _via negativa_ tells us not only that we cannot know fully _what_ God is, but also that we cannot know all of _who_ God is. In other words, both our notion of God's transcendence and our notion of his immanence are of necessity incomplete. We find that we can never fully know who another human being is; how much less then can we ever fully know who God is? I like Professor O'Laughlin's idea of _Deus semper maior,_ "God is always greater." How true!
The One cannot be gendered, is not a he or a she.
Threshold
BY R. S. THOMAS
I emerge from the mind’s
cave into the worse darkness
outside, where things pass and
the Lord is in none of them.
I have heard the still, small voice
and it was that of the bacteria
demolishing my cosmos. I
have lingered too long on
this threshold, but where can I go?
To look back is to lose the soul
I was leading upwards towards
the light. To look forward? Ah,
what balance is needed at
the edges of such an abyss.
I am alone on the surface
of a turning planet. What
to do but, like Michelangelo’s
Adam, put my hand
out into unknown space,
hoping for the reciprocating touch?
Good one this one.
while i agree to a large extent, we need to put stock in how Jesus articulated who God is.
You can do so, but you must resort to paradox. God can be transcendent (Father), immanent (Spirit), and personal (Jesus) all at the same time. The Cappadocian fathers had this view.
When people say negative theology. Are they saying that God is evil and is not to be trusted at all? I would like some honest answers.
Very interesting! Very interesting! Hmm!!!
I studied philosophy in the American University in Cairo and the question of God always fascinates me. I've been searching for so long on the problem of God and evil existence and I read so many books and articles on the topic and even wrote my thesis on "Faith and Reason". I have yet to reach an answer. I like Simon Oliver's approach - may be we should start with negating what God is not. But my question is, when do so, aren't you already making a supposition? Example, I would like to believe that God is not bad. In assuming that, questions about children dying of diseases, innocent people getting killed at wars come to my head and I say, if God is NOT bad, why does He allow this to happen? I'd love to study theology in detail but would love to have some conversation going if possible!
Thanks for the video, please post more.
Hello Salma.
Well i ll ve been reading a lot about apophatic & cataphatic theology but never got to answer as well.I think i ll have to follow and agree with st Gregory the Theologian.In his second theological oration :
“To define Him in words is an impossibility” [30] -even for the Scriptures, we are to understand; knowledge of the divine through the Scriptures has only a “relative superiority,” [31] and is not absolute in comprehension; simply put, “the Deity cannot be expressed in words,” “It is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him.”
So even if the scriptures cannot make a fairly statement about God Himself how could we as simple human beings :)
A shadow is an attribute of the absence of light, does light allow that absence?
We do not see light, but we do see its attribute, illumination. Light can illuminate a wolf eating a deer. Is the light allowing the death of the deer?
Evil done by people is the absence of the Good, the One.
You can only deny what you can define.
You have missed the logic of apophatism.
I've been wanting to start studying negative theology, but I'm not sure where to begin. Any suggestions for a good introductory book on the subject matter? Thanks in advance.
Not necessarily Christian but William Frankes 2 volumes 'On What Cannot Be Said " might provide a useful overview extracts from many ancient and modern sources
If we don't posit that world was "created," then does God still have to be beyond human understanding?
Perhaps.
A safe beginning to say that what we can say of God is not a creature or evil, well that's easy...I'm going to listen further to see if you confess that God is neither Good, True, Love, Being, Non Being, and the list goes on...and then what next?
Nirguna and saguna? Affirm both and hold them in tension.
Where can we find "Learned ignorance" by Cusa?
Jasper Hopkins translation 1985 look on amazon or abebooks
Apophatic theology seems to challenge assumptions of ignosticism.
Ignosticism is not about the One, it is about mankinds ignorance of the One.
What is the difference between our ignorance of God as he/she is in his/herself, and our ignorance of any physical object as it is in itself? Both seem to share a transcendent nature. I think we need another verb besides "exist", to describe the dynamics in the supposed dimension where such propositions or principles inhabit...
True, we are all ignorant of the One. The One cannot have a gender so is not a he or a she and the One is also not an object all though all objects are of the One, or touched by the One as it was said. Exist root word is outside of as existence is to stand outside of so dimension is not where the One which would mean that the One is nondimensional and not an object.
can someone translate these into arabic subtitles?
Have you worked with Translate.google? Its amazing. Literally copy and past and viola.
Dawkins does not say that there is no God, he says that there is no good reason to believe in Moses Jealous God.. and on that I agree.. Prof Dawkins is no fool..
Ah Denys Turner...an old UCD man. These men should lecture in Maynooth....well at least sometimes.
Whether we try to understand what god is or is not is moot to me. I feel that we cannot know that god exists at all; therefore we may as well try to prove that any figment of our imagination exists. Does the boogeyman exist or do leprechauns exist. As an atheist I feel that all religion is a waste of our time and most importantly a waste of our resources. Better to spend our energiessolvin known problems.
Eriguina in his Divisions of Nature categorizes God or The One as a Non-Being or Beyond Being... the word existence in metaphysics only applies to corporeal realities not metaphysical entities...you cannot say God doesn’t exist really your using the word wrong cause God is metaphysical ...
How does the God of Israel square with negative theology?
On the roof is Floop. You can't prove there isn't a Floop on the roof until you know what a Floop is. But I'm not going to tell you what a Floop is. Therefore there is a Floop on the roof.
Your argument is a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning when the one reasoning begins with a claim they are trying to conclude with.
Volume too low
Revealed books' people think they know what is right and must be done to please their gods.
These people are able to kill and die for that knowledge.
How can Negative Theology address that?
Revealed books. Like The Communist Manifesto? Mao's Little Red Book? Certainly 100 million people died for THAT knowledge.
Easy, the One, the Good, is not evil and does not do evil.
God is nothing. Not the empty set but by definition 'No Thing' as in not a member of the set of everything else that we can experience in the world around us. Hence the prohibition about worshiping graven images. Such things would define the Deity and place limits on our expectations of what the Deity is capable of. A deity that can speak the universe into existence isn't going to be like anything else.
This is why Sola Scriptura is such a BAD idea. I believe the majority of the Bible teaches about what God is NOT. It's seemingly the only way to learn who the True God is described in John 1 (not Gen 1). For God is not a human that needs to rest from work (as Jesus teaches us). The Bible os based on divine realities - not 'whatever you read is a truism'. Theres only one way to learn about the false light, and thats through... no I don't want to sound heretical. Let me just say theres a reason why Satan challenged Jesus with scripture. That should be very telling in itself. It's sad people have rationalized that scenario with Jewish/Islamic thought.
No Satan didn't know the Bible before the creation. The Bible is not a magic book that transcends our universe because God is far above words. Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. and was written by men via inspiration and written piecemeal over a thousand years The Logos is a concept - is not the KJV.
There may be some principles to be gleaned from the bible, however, it was not only written by men, but by Committees of men at different times, filled with contradiction because those committee's were governed by their Self Interest the invisible hand that governs all human behavior.
Allah hu akbar!
god is not god
What do you mean by good?
@@bobpolo2964 who is God, God is a word.... not name
I read that most ancient theologians just defined God as being beyond good and beyond evil and beyond wise etc