“Critically compare the via negativa with symbolic language as ways of expressing religious beliefs in words”

The via negativa and symbolic language are both ways of expressing religious belief. The via negativa, advocated by pseudo dionysius, states that positive attributes are misleading and God is beyond all human imagination. Tillich, on the other hand, stated that religious language is symbolic and communicates the most significant beliefs and values of human beings. However, some have suggested that it’s not clear what participating in a symbol means, and many Christians don’t believe that language is symbolic. Ultimately, however, symbolic language will be far more effective than the via negativa as it actually describes God rather than saying what he is not. The via negative states that God is beyond all human imagination, you can only talk about him in negative terms. He is transcendent, so you cannot say what God is. The key idea is that language cannot directly describe God, he is beyond human comprehension and totally ineffable. Pseudo Dionysius stated that god is ‘beyond assertion’ and ‘beyond denial’, meaning that whatever you say about God ultimately does not tell us about God. this does not mean that you cannot say things about God, but ultimately this language does not tell people about God, because our knowledge of goodness is that of a human being. This is because God’s goodness is greater than human concepts. We cannot know for certain what it is to have God’s attributes and qualities. This conclusion drawn from the via negativa has been rightly criticised by many. Hick points out that it is a contradiction to say that God is beyond human comprehension, yet to say that he can be found in the Bible. By knowing God through the Bible, this shows that the ‘only way to talk of God’ is not by using negative terms. If he can be known through storytelling and symbolic language which is presented in the Bible, then he therefore is known without the use of the via negativa. Although the via negativa states that you can clearly see what God is not e.g. does not have a body, is not evil, this theory is unreliable as methods such a symbolic language do, indeed, show us what God is. In all religious traditions, there are symbols which communicate beliefs about God to people, for example, in Christianity, there is the crucifix. Paul Tillich is a twentieth century philosopher and theologian who is famously associated with the use of symbols to describe God. He rightly argued that religious language is symbolic, religious symbols communicate the most significant beliefs and values of human beings. Symbols communicate something which is often difficult to put into words. For example, in every Roman Catholic church there is a lighted candle near the tabernacle which symbolises the presence of God within the tabernacle. This communicates the idea of the sacred presence of God. In this way, it is much more effective than the via negativa as it gives a tangible example of God’s presence and an insight into his nature, rather than merely stating what he is not.However, there are many negatives of expressing religious beliefs through symbols. For example, in Tillich’s thinking, God is defined as the ground of being, the basis of all that exists and also the meaning behind all that exists. For this reason he argues that the ground of being should be the ultimate concern of people; material possessions and ideas cannot replace God. Therefore, the ground of being cannot be comprehended or known in a personal way, but is known through symbols. This can become a drawback as the meaning of a symbol can lose its meaning in society. Tillich noted that symbols can be reinterpreted and come to mean something different. For example the Hindu symbol of the swastika was adopted by the Nazi party. This therefore shows that symbols may not be the most effective way of communicating religious beliefs, as they can be adapted to mean different things for different people. With regard to religion, this conflict of meaning makes it difficult for believers to learn real truths.However, contrastingly, it has been shown through history that that you cannot destroy a symbol. This may be seen clearly in the efforts of dictators to destroy religious and national symbols. These activities have rarely succeeded, and often the support for a symbol has become a sign of resistance. Therefore, this still, ultimately shows that although symbolic language may be criticised, it is still much more effective and explanatory than the via negativa.Further, Tillich suggested that symbols participate in the thing which they point to. So, if the crucifix is symbolic of the significance of Jesus’ death, it somehow participates in the event. This means that it gives access to a deeper level of understanding of the event. This is much more effective than the via negativa which has been criticised by Brian Davies who stated that saying what something is not does not give an indication of what it is. In this way, participating in a symbol contrasts this as it shows the individual exactly the nature of what something is, as you become a participant of it.To conclude, it is clear that the via negativa does not tell believers anything about God’s nature or religious belief. This kind of information is important for believers and thus makes the via negativa less credible. Although some religious believers do not rely upon symbols to express beliefs, the use of symbols is universally accepted and can be used effectively if an individual finds them beneficial. This contrasts the via negativa which gives no universal insight into ways of expressing religious beliefs in words.