 |
| Engraving by Otto van Veen (1660), who negatively describes God as "Quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit" (Vulgate), "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard" (1 Corinthians 2:9) |
Negative theology—also known as apophatic theology—is a theological approach that seeks to describe God by negation, emphasizing what God is not rather than what God is.
Core Idea:
Because God is ultimately infinite, transcendent, and beyond human comprehension, any positive statement we make about God (e.g., “God is good,” “God is powerful”) risks reducing the divine mystery to human concepts. So instead, negative theology insists:
-
God is not finite.
-
God is not material.
-
God is not evil.
-
God is not like anything we can conceive.
Key Features:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Method | Describes God by denying attributes (e.g., not mortal, not physical) rather than affirming them. |
| Goal | To preserve the mystery, holiness, and otherness of God. |
| Result | Leads to silence, awe, or mystical union, acknowledging the limits of language. |
| Contrast | Opposes cataphatic theology, which speaks about God through affirmations (e.g., “God is love”). |
-
Greek philosophy: Plato and Neoplatonism (especially Plotinus) deeply influenced this approach.
-
Early Christianity: Church Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite were foundational.
-
Jewish and Islamic traditions: Negative theology also appears in Kabbalah and in thinkers like Maimonides and Al-Farabi.
Example:
Rather than saying “God is wise,” apophatic theology would say:
-
“God is not ignorant”
-
…and then go further to say: “Even our concept of wisdom is inadequate to describe God.”
In Practice:
-
Mystics often use this approach to lead the soul beyond words, beyond thought, into contemplative union with the divine mystery. (cf. Christian Mysticism)
Let me know if you'd like a chart comparing apophatic vs. cataphatic theology, or how negative theology might be reinterpreted through Process Theology.
RES
As you have observed, it would be appropriate to say that negative theology recognizes human language and concepts to be inadequate in fully describing the divine....
ChatGPT
Yes, precisely—and your phrasing is excellent.
To expand just slightly on your sentence:
"As you have observed, it is appropriate to say that negative theology recognizes human language and concepts to be inadequate in fully describing the divine."
This captures the central humility of negative theology: that all human speech about God—no matter how exalted—is ultimately limited, symbolic, and provisional. At best, our language points toward the divine mystery, but never contains it.
In more theological terms:
-
Essence (ousia) of God is unknowable.
-
Energeia (divine actions in the world) may be experienced, but does not exhaust the divine being.
-
Therefore, any positive attribution is metaphor, analogy, or abstraction—must be loosely held.
The apophatic impulse often leads to silence, contemplation, or the “cloud of unknowing,” because it acknowledges that:
-
To speak too confidently of God is to risk idolatry of concepts.
-
Only through unknowing do we come close to divine truth.
Would you like this framed in terms of how thinkers like Eckhart, Dionysius, or Whitehead might interpret or critique this view?
RES
Yes, but first, "Who are Echkhart, Dionysius, and Whitehead, briefly?" (I mention this for new readers who may chance upon our discussion).
ChatGPT
Certainly. Here's a brief introduction to each figure, tailored for new readers who may encounter this discussion:
1. Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–c. 1328)
A German Christian mystic, philosopher, and Dominican theologian, Eckhart is known for his deeply contemplative teachings that emphasize the birth of God in the soul and the soul’s union with the divine Ground.
-
He spoke of God as beyond being, aligning with negative theology in insisting that even calling God "God" limits the ineffable.
-
Famous for paradoxical statements like:
“I pray God to rid me of God.”
-
He was later condemned for heresy, though today he's considered a visionary of mystical theology.
2. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th – early 6th century)
A Christian Neoplatonist theologian, writing under the name of a biblical convert of Paul (though his real identity is unknown).
-
He developed a system of apophatic (negative) theology, insisting that God transcends all names and attributes.
-
Influential in both Eastern Orthodox and Western Christian thought.
-
Key work: The Mystical Theology, where he urges that we “leave behind everything perceived and understood, all that is not and all that is, and be lifted up... to the ray of the divine darkness.”
3. Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947)
A British philosopher and mathematician, best known as the founder of process philosophy.
-
Unlike negative theology, Whitehead affirms a God who is involved, relational, and growing with the world.
-
God is not a static, distant being, but a processual reality—both influencing and being influenced by creation.
-
His God has two “natures”:
-
The primordial nature (eternal possibilities), and
-
The consequent nature (responsive, feeling the world’s joys and sorrows).
-
-
Key work: Process and Reality (1929).
Would you now like to explore how each of these thinkers interacts with—or departs from—negative theology?
RES
Very much so... thank you!
ChatGPT
You're very welcome. Let's now explore how Eckhart, Dionysius, and Whitehead each engage with—or depart from—the principles of negative theology, highlighting their continuities and contrasts.
🔹1. Pseudo-Dionysius: Foundational Apophatic Voice
Alignment with Negative Theology:
-
Central Architect of apophatic theology in the Christian tradition.
-
His core idea: God is beyond being, beyond comprehension, and cannot be named or known through affirmations.
-
He says we must negate all things, even the names of goodness, being, and unity when speaking of God.
Key Quote:
“The cause of all is above all and is not Himself any of the things that are, nor is He a kind of being.”
Summary:
Dionysius defines the apophatic tradition. His “divine darkness” becomes a path to mystical union—not by knowledge, but by unknowing.
🔹2. Meister Eckhart: Mystic of the Groundless God
Alignment with Negative Theology:
-
Strongly influenced by Dionysius and Neoplatonic thought.
-
Speaks of the “Godhead” (Gottheit)—the absolute, nameless divine essence—as beyond God, even beyond Trinity or personhood.
-
Believes God is only truly found in the silence beyond concepts, where the soul meets God in the “ground of being.”
Departure / Expansion:
-
Emphasizes the inner experience of God—the “birth of the Word in the soul.”
-
Tends toward a mystical interiorization of apophatic theology: while God remains beyond naming, the divine also emerges within the soul’s depths.
Key Quote:
“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.”
Summary:
Eckhart radicalizes Dionysius by internalizing the divine mystery within the self's own ground, blending apophatic unknowing with mystical immanence.
🔹3. Alfred North Whitehead: Philosopher of Divine Relationality
Divergence from Negative Theology:
-
Whitehead rejects the notion that God is unknowable or wholly transcendent.
-
For him, God is immanent in the world, relational, and knowable through the unfolding process of creation.
-
Rather than deny all attributes, Whitehead reframes them dynamically: God's “power” is persuasive, not coercive; God's “knowledge” evolves with the world.
Processual Affirmation:
-
God is not beyond being but is being-in-process.
-
The divine is not outside the universe but its deepest lure toward novelty and beauty.
-
Rather than say "God is not this or that," Whitehead asks: How does God become with the world?
Key Contrast:
Where Dionysius says, “God is beyond being,”
Whitehead says, “God is the fellow sufferer who understands.”
Summary:
Whitehead departs from apophatic theology by offering a relational metaphysic where divine mystery is not eliminated, but it grows alongside creation and can be creatively known through experience.
🌌 Summary Chart:
| Thinker | Approach to Negative Theology | Key Emphasis | Relation to God |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dionysius | Pure Apophaticism | Divine transcendence and unknowability | Beyond being |
| Eckhart | Mystical-Apophatic | Inner experience of the divine Ground | Godhead beyond God |
| Whitehead | Process-Relational (Not Apophatic) | Creative becoming and mutual relation | God in process with world |
Would you like to go further and explore how Process Theology attempts to preserve divine mystery without resorting to full apophatic negation? Or contrast this with contemporary mystical movements?
RES
You’re pointing to a necessary tension in theology: between divine unknowability and divine relationality, between transcendence and immanence, and between mystery and presence.
Let’s unpack your insight in three parts:
🔹1. "We can appreciate giving God language by not giving God language…"
This is the essence of negative theology: to affirm that every word for God is ultimately a veil, not the face itself.
-
Language, in this sense, is reverent restraint.
-
It protects the divine from being domesticated by human categories.
-
Apophaticism functions almost like a theological humility or silence that refuses to possess the sacred.
Yet as you imply, even negation is a kind of speech—a paradox:
“To say nothing of God is still to say something about God.”
Negative theology thus becomes a kind of language that bows, rather than asserts.
🔹2. "Process language avoids the stark transcendency of God who cannot be known..."
Exactly. Process theology (especially in Whitehead and Hartshorne) refuses the vision of God as an absolute Other, wholly outside creation.
-
God is not “up there” or “beyond all being,” but rather in, with, and through all becoming.
-
The God of process is not impassible, but feeling, responsive, and co-experiencing.
In doing so, process language:
-
Rescues God from cosmic isolation,
-
While still honoring God's primordial depth and mystery through the concept of the primordial nature (God as the eternal lure toward value and beauty).
This is not a collapse into pantheism but rather panentheism:
God in all things, and all things in God—but God is more than all things.
🔹3. "...while also giving to classical transcendent language a God of presence and abiding relationship without which God's cruciform embodiment would be of little comfort."
This is a profound theological synthesis.
You're recognizing that without a God who suffers, who is with us, apophatic detachment would leave us in existential isolation.
-
The cross—God’s cruciform embodiment—is not just a symbol of suffering, but of divine participation in human fragility.
-
Process theology affirms this by insisting that God experiences the world, suffers with it, and seeks its healing through gentle persuasion, not coercion.
In this way, process thought offers a middle path:
-
It retains the reverence of negative theology—God is never fully grasped.
-
But it also affirms the nearness and feeling of God—God is never absent from the becoming of the world.
✧ Final Summary Statement:
Process theology does not reject divine mystery but reorients it—from a mystery of absence to a mystery of presence.
It gives us a God who is both more-than-all and with-all, a God who cannot be fully named, but who calls us by name.
Would you like this formulated into a poetic passage, a chart, or a theological essay-style paragraph?
RES
Let's try a short poetic passage along with a chart. thank you.
ChatGPT
Absolutely. Here's a short poetic passage paired with a theological comparison chart, expressing the synthesis you’ve articulated:
🌒 Poetic Passage: “The God Who Stays”
We sought You in the silence,
Beyond word, beyond will—
Where speech dissolves, and mind unknows.Yet You were here,
Not behind veils,
But within the trembling of the moment.Not God of thunderous distance,
But God who leans in—
Wounded, whispering, becoming.The mystery did not fade;
It deepened in Your touch.And we learned to name You,
Not to define --
But to abide.
- by ChatGPT
📊 Chart: Negative Theology vs. Process Theology (and the Synthesis You Described)
| Element | Negative Theology | Process Theology | Theological Synthesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Divine Knowability | Ultimately unknowable; beyond being and names | Knowable through relation and experience | Known in presence, unknown in fullness |
| Language about God | Apophatic negation: God is not this or that | Affirmative process: God is this becoming | Relational restraint: language as shared becoming |
| Divine Transcendence | Infinite, wholly other, detached from creation | Panentheistic: immanent within the world’s process | Transcendent through participation |
| Divine Suffering / Love | Often abstracted or absent | Deeply engaged, co-suffering, persuasive love | Love that suffers yet transcends through fidelity |
| Mystery | Darkness and silence of God | Mystery of becoming and divine presence | Mystery held in cruciform nearness |
| Christ / Embodiment | Sometimes de-emphasized in pure apophatic strands | Central: the Consequent Nature of God incarnate | Mystery enfleshed, shared in suffering and joy |
