Comments on: What Does It Mean?

By: Ted Scott

Ted Scott — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:32:21 +0000

Well there is a certain commonality Mark, with your words and with the quote of Father Robin.

You were probably recalling the words of Anthony De Mello when you wrote the above. He related that in the Indian tradition they used the Sanskrit words “Neti, neti,” when trying to describe God. This is translated as “Not that, not that.”

It seems to have come to the realisation of many people from very different religious traditions that it is impossible to say what God is. Consequently there has been an attempt to approach the concept of God, not from what God is, but from what God is not. (I know you are familiar with the works of Karen Armstrong. She has related this concept quite well in a number of her books.)

This approach goes under the name of Via Negativa, or “the Negative Way.” It is also known as Apophatic Theology..

Many of the religious traditions have used this technique. It has been used in Greek Philosophy, as well as in Muslim, Christian,Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist writings.

Famously, in the Christian tradition, it was expounded by St Thomas Aquinas.

In the end, as Father Robin’s quote from Paul Davies attests, we are limited in what we can know directly. As I have argued elsehwere this is manifested in Mathematics by Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem and in Physics by Heisenbrg’s Uncertainty Theorem.

By: Mark Brookes

Mark Brookes — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:37:25 +0000

I recall reading that the most appropriate description and expression of God is “Not this, not that”. Not very helpful I know! But a salutary reminder we have an imperfect understanding, and that we should be reluctant to claim that our particular belief system is uniquely and unilaterally true.

By: Father Robin

Father Robin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:43:30 +0000

But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of ‘understanding’ from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such an understanding. I have never had a mystical experience myself, but I keep an open mind about the value of such experiences. Maybe they provide the only route beyond the limits to which science and philosophy can take us, the only possible path to the Ultimate.

Paul Davies, The Mind of God, conclusion

By: Ted Scott

Ted Scott — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:20:08 +0000

Oh, Mark – how wonderful it is to see your perceptiveness! If even half the world had your understanding how much better that world would be!

By: Mark Brookes

Mark Brookes — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:18:54 +0000

And so as discussed in previous blogs, any attempt to define or explain “God” however comprehensive and conceptually sound is inevitably doomed to be inadequate, subject as it is to the limitations of the language in which it is written and the cultural perspective from which it comes – hence we see the main religious traditions convey the same important moral and spiritual teachings, but which remain open to manipulation and misunderstanding?