Via Negativa "Negative Theology" or the "Negative Way", says that God is beyond comprehension and thus not suited to language which attatches to God any positive characteristics. Thus, one can only speak about God by saying what God is not. Even saying This is found in many traditions, from Christianity to Hinduism, mostly mystical traditions based on direct experience of some ineffible, boundless phenomena within. Some of these mystics say that using the word "God" implies more than one can say (or using the word "theology"), and they make clear that the idea such a God exists or does not exist is too reductive. Since this is reportedly an experience, and there are cross cultural reports of these experiences, it fits the definition of "objectively substantiated" found in all of the humanities (see "soft objectivity"). What do you think?
2007-01-16 02:30:28 · 13 answers · asked by neil s 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I said the experiences were objectively verified, like several people taking a drug and giving the same discription of their experience. Many of the texts reporting these experiences give physiological correlates, which have also been verified. That sounds much more objective than ghosts.
2007-01-16 02:45:22 · update #1
As a Buddhist, I think Via Negativa would die on the debate grounds almost immediately, even among some of the most basic debators. We totally refute the idea of a creator god, not just say that one might not have "positive characteristics" and such. The Eastern way of thinking is VASTLY different from Western philosophy like you're putting forward here. To better understand what is different you can grab up on a text about Eastern philosophy and Buddhist debate and philosophy at bookstores (Buddhist topics of logic and debate www.snowlionpub.com or wisdompubs.org).
You'll find it a WHOLE NEW WORLD. Western philosophy (IMO) never tends to get away from dualism, and the world revolving around some "me" that people believe is inherently existent. From there, Western science, philosophy, religion and such is skewed toward that way of thinking. Eastern philosophy goes beyond that... WAY beyond.
_()_
2007-01-16 04:18:27 · answer #1 · answered by vinslave 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The concept is valid, the execution is lacking.
For example, based on comprehensive studies we can say that god does not answer prayers. However, this is not the Via Negativa's way.
Instead they declare such things as god is not multiple independent beings. This is not any rational statement, it is a statement of a particular faith. If Yahweh/Jehovah did exist, who is to say he is the only god being. Even he declares only that his people should have "no other gods before me".
Further, to use people's subjective experience as a substantiation of a god being is a logical leap unsupported by facts. People can subjectively experience a sense of, for lack of a better word, the numinous. This does not mean that a being exists to produce this sensation any more than the experience of love points to the existence of Eros or Aphrodite.
I would prefer the Via Negativa if it merely made the statement "god is not" and left it at that.
Go in peace to love and serve the truth.
2007-01-16 02:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Dave P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We first need to distinguish two types of "god".
The first type is God as creator of the universe etc. This kind of God does not exist in Buddhism.
The second type is a divine or supernatural being, and of these one could simply say there are two kinds of gods in Buddhism:
Not all living beings live on planet earth, or would even be visible to us. One could say that these creatures live in different dimensions from us. See also 'Heaven and Hell' below. Some of these creatures experience because of their karma (past actions) almost exclusively happiness, and these are called Devas (Skt.) or gods. However, these gods are still within the cycles of uncontrolled rebirth and can be reborn in the 'lower realms' once their positive store of karma is exhausted.
If one defines a god as a supernatural being, one could say that a Buddha or an Arya being are "supernatural" in the sense that they are not bound to the same realms of cyclic existence as we are, and they are said to possess supernatural powers (siddhis).
A Buddha is said to know everything, but not omnipotent (all-powerful). The logical reasoning behind this last is that if a Buddha would be omnipotent, He/She would instantly remove suffering from the universe, because compassion for all sentient beings (wishing to free alll from suffering) is the main motivation to become a Buddha.
2007-01-16 02:53:53 · answer #3 · answered by sista! 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i'm Agnostic and that i'd say that i'd specially opt for to carry interest to the very incontrovertible reality that only because Atheists and Agnostics are literally not unavoidably 'non secular', this does no longer mean that we do no longer have morals. to boot to, it does no longer mean that we are no longer non secular. many cases, after I tell a Christian that i'm Agnostic, they immediately imagine that A.) Agnostic is an similar ingredient as Atheist and B.) that I even haven't any morals only because i do no longer stay by the Bible.
2016-11-24 21:06:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can still believe it does not exist. However you expand an idea or how many attributes you attach to it even by making it "beyond comprehension" you can not deny a person's choice in believing what you are saying is true or not. I can deny a God in my comprehension jsut as I can deny one which itself denys me the chance of comprehension. Both I cease to believe in.
2007-01-16 02:36:01 · answer #5 · answered by jleslie4585 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In reference to the Tao, Taoists follow that. However, the Tao is no God.
As for me, it seems to me like a safe bet - the only god whose existence you can't refute is the god that you never bother to explain.
To whit:
'God is a thing that cannot be described. Prove _that_ wrong'.
If that's what it takes to 'believe', my question would be: why even bother?
2007-01-16 02:34:10 · answer #6 · answered by XYZ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Objectively substantiated? Like ghosts have been "seen" in almost all cultures? Doesn't mean anything to me.
There still is no god or spirits or ghosts or anything like that.
2007-01-16 02:38:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay, this is all I'm going to say; I'm neither an atheist or a Buddhist, but i can safely say that the two are different (as opposed to what you're implying in you're question). Buddhism is a religion, atheism is the lack of one.
2007-01-16 02:57:31 · answer #8 · answered by Skippy 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Atheists don't say god is beyond comprehension. Agnostics and Deists do.
We say god doesn't exist.
2007-01-16 02:33:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, it isn't hard to imagine something that you can't imagine. lol
Wait: You're calling Buddhists, Atheists? I realize they don't have any creator gods, but they believe in the supernatural. They aren't Atheists.
2007-01-16 02:37:10 · answer #10 · answered by A 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋