The Question of Negative Theology – Part One
It Is Not a Matter of Abdicating Reason, But of Avoiding Presumption
Between Reticence and Ranting
Today, we are besieged by many self-proclaimed teachers, whom we are forced to endure and from whom we must guard ourselves. With great pomp and dogmatic arrogance, they boast of academic credentials and hundreds of publications, yet remain ignorant of the Magisterium of the Church. Promoted by the mass media of the dominant powers, they assert—authoritatively and without room for dissent—what we must affirm and what we must deny about God. They claim to reveal the true nature of the "biblical God" and the "God of Jesus Christ," while seeking to save us from the "abstract God of metaphysics," from the God of "Greek dualism," and from the pre-Christian, wrathful punisher of the Old Testament and paganism.
Undoubtedly, the word "God" can be associated with what is not truly God—whether it be the self, an idol, or a creature elevated to divine status. It is possible to attribute to God things that do not befit Him or to develop a false concept of God. However, it remains universally recognized that God exists, for all those endowed with reason naturally infer, from the observation of the things of this world—the effects of divine creative work—the existence of a first cause. In doing so, they discern God's role as a legislator and judge of their actions, to whom they are accountable for their deeds.
These self-proclaimed intellectuals often reject essential truths about God. They dispute His ontological subsistence, the internal coherence and absence of contradiction within His essence, His unique identity, and the capacity to be understood, known, and expressed. They further deny His immutability, impassibility, transcendence, and absolute spirituality, as well as His innocence regarding the existence of evil. Additionally, they question the wisdom of His legislative will, His loyalty and credibility toward humanity, His provision of undeniable evidence for His existence, His omnipotence in relieving suffering, His justice in punishing the wicked, and His act of creation as the production of all being from nothing.
On the other hand, they assert what must be denied about God. They claim that contradictions coexist within the divine essence, proposing a higher but absurd and non-existent unity or synthesis of opposites. This notion turns God's essence into the basis for duplicity and dishonesty. Furthermore, they declare God's absolute unknowability, unintelligibility, incomprehensibility, inconceivability, and ineffability, reducing Him to something irrational and, consequently, non-existent. They also assert that the divine nature is mutable, thereby undermining the foundation of God's faithfulness and reliability. This strips Him of His infinite righteousness and lowers Him to a capricious and unreliable being. In addition, they affirm His passibility and corruptibility, subjecting Him to suffering as though He were a composite entity of matter and form, vulnerable to deprivation and dissolution. Moreover, they claim that the world completes the divine essence, effectively turning God into the world, as if, in Rahner’s terms, the world were His "destiny." Alongside these misconceptions, they offer a false portrayal of divine mercy and present the divine nature as an unfathomable foundation for pre-conceptual self-consciousness.
God for Idealists
For some thinkers—such as idealists, Cartesian philosophers, pantheists, Buddhists, and Hindus—God is equated with self-consciousness; it is the "I." In their view, God is not a "you," an external person who stands before me, nor merely an object of my capacity to know, think, love, or desire. Rather, God embodies my very subjectivity; He is the "subject," as they articulate.
Thus, God is not situated outside or above me; rather, He resides within me. Indeed, at a fundamental level, I am that very essence. In this light, they invoke the concept of the "transcendental I." Kant refers to it as "pure reason," Fichte as the "pure I," Hegel as the "Absolute," Schelling as the "Subject," Heidegger as "preunderstanding" (Vorgriff), Rahner as "transcendental experience" or the "absolute, ineffable mystery," and Fr. G.Barzaghi as "pure thought." This aligns with Meister Eckhart's notion of the "depth of the soul." It is also the "pure act" of thought described by Giovanni Gentile, the Brahman of Hindu philosophy, and the Nirvana of Buddhism. Furthermore, it represents the àghnoson of the Gnostics and the "unconscious" discussed by modernists, a concept addressed by St. Pius X in (the Encyclical, Ed.) Pascendi.
For these thinkers, self-consciousness is the original and absolute thinking that is inherently possessed by humanity, provided one desires it and is aware of it. To this absolute self-consciousness, which forms the foundation of the human spirit, one can elevate oneself, as it corresponds to the pinnacle of one’s capacity to think. Therefore, the human mind doesn't need to be raised above itself by a transcendent God; rather, the human mind is potentially God.
Certainly, for idealists, the mind of the empirical "I" is finite. However, the finite can elevate itself to the level of the infinite. The mind is not only capable of knowing the Infinite; it can also be infinite itself, as for idealists, knowing coincides with being, and being coincides with knowing.
From this original self-consciousness, according to idealists, proceeds knowledge or conceptual understanding. Only Hegel identifies the "I" or self-consciousness with the Concept and the Idea. Thought is Being. The concept negates itself, denies the negation, and returns to itself within the dialectical circularity that constitutes Reason. The Idea descends and becomes concretized in Nature and History, which in turn elevates, self-transcends, and ascends to the Idea, which represents Absolute Knowledge. Self-consciousness is the Totality and the Absolute, which is Spirit.
The idealist does not view God as an entity separate from himself or as an Absolute Person before whom he must speak, invoke, question, listen, obey, worship, offer sacrifices, seek forgiveness, or account for his actions. Such notions do not apply. Instead, for the idealist, God is identified with the "transcendental I" the original pre-conceptual self-consciousness that constitutes the foundation for both experience and conceptualization. Thus, the relationship with God becomes one of interaction between the empirical "I" and the transcendental "I."
This relationship ultimately resolves into the realization that one's self is not merely the empirical "I," a transient appearance destined to dissolve with death. Rather, it is the transcendental "I," which corresponds to what religion and theology refer to as "God," although the idealist prefers the term "Absolute," as do Schelling and Hegel. The term "God" belongs to the conceptual-religious language of the empirical "I," whereas the discussion here pertains to a more radical, profound, authentic, and original self—self-consciousness derived from Cartesian cogito.
The human self transitions from the realm of human and conceptual thought to "pure thinking," which is non-conceptual and pre-conceptual, as Barzaghi articulates. It adopts, to quote Barzaghi again, the "gaze of God," through which God contemplates things not outside Himself but only within Himself, identical to His essence. For the idealist, a person perceives things outside themselves only as the empirical "I"; however, as the transcendental "I," one sees them as existing within and as God.
Idealist apophaticism, in its attempt to elevate God as the "absolute mystery" (Rahner) [1] or "pure thought" (Barzaghi) [2], claims that one cannot form a concept of God, that we know nothing about Him, and that absolutely nothing can be said about Him. Thus, God cannot be named. Yet, in doing so, it paradoxically engages in discussion about Him and attempts to conceptualize Him, falling into contradiction and ultimately nullifying its thesis by saying nothing meaningful, instead relying on empty words.
Those who reason in this way overlook the fact that to assert something about anything—even to say that we know nothing about that thing—The speaker must first define the topic they are discussing. In other words, they need to specify what it is that they claim to know nothing about.
To assert that nothing can be said or conceived about a subject, the speaker must clarify the nature of that subject. However, in doing so, it becomes evident that they contradict their assertion that nothing can be said. Conversely, if they fail to preliminarily define what they intend to discuss, then the claim that nothing can be known becomes vacuous, mere sounds that dissipate into the air. While some perceptive individuals chuckle to themselves, a few fools stand in awe, admiring the speaker's supposed brilliance.
The Problem of Atheism
In stark contrast to the idealist stands the atheist. Whereas the idealist is absorbed in lofty concepts such as "idea," "being," "absolute knowledge," "truth," "spirit," "consciousness," "infinity," "eternity," "totality," "absolute," "thought," and even God Himself, the atheist dismisses these notions as little more than empty abstractions. To the atheist, such ideas represent futile discussions that breed arrogance and distract individuals from their tangible responsibilities and real-world potential. Instead, the atheist focuses on the here and now: they prioritize experience, empirical science, history, and material, verifiable facts. Their interests lie in earthly pleasures, labor, economics, culture, technology, politics, and the mastery of nature.
However, the atheist is not blind to the existence of God. They possess reason just like anyone else, and when they engage their faculties, they often arrive at the reluctant conclusion that God is real. Yet, to rationalize their stance, they frequently reinterpret God in various ways. They might dismiss Him as a whimsical embodiment of nature’s forces or as a lingering psychological trauma stemming from childhood conflicts with a father figure—an impediment to their personality, haunted by a nagging sense of guilt. For others, God is an idealized projection of their alienation, weighed down by the exploitation of the ruling class. Some see Him as a hollow refuge from life's harsh realities, a fanciful escape into the clouds, rather than facing the ground beneath their feet. Others may construct an image of God as a benevolent and omnipotent being, a notion that seems to crumble in the face of evil's existence, yet paradoxically continues to be reborn in the hearts of believers who, despite the brutal truths of life, cling to this comforting illusion and persist in dreaming.
The atheist boasts of a scientific refutation of the existence of God, yet in reality, it is he who engages in irrationality by claiming to assign the role of the foundation, which the world, in need of one, does not possess. Consequently, when man relies on it, he plunges into the abyss or, as Kant expresses it, into the “chasm of reason.”[3] Kant naively believes he has refuted the thesis of the first cause by questioning who caused the first cause. This demonstrates that he has failed to grasp what the first cause is, for if it were caused by a prior cause, it would no longer be the first cause.
Atheism, as a denial of the existence of God, entails two attitudes: one intellectual and the other volitional. With the first attitude, the atheist eliminates God from the horizon of his thought, yet he cannot ignore the fact that God exists and that he must answer to Him. God remains his creator and the driving force of his intellect, despite being a denier of God. However, through the volitional aspect, the atheist can effectively replace God by sinning, since in sin, man positions himself within the order of the first cause, which here is the creature and cannot be God.
Thus, if atheism means that man opposes God and does not desire Him, there may exist a perhaps paradoxical, yet possible, case of a theologian who shares the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas and yet—God forbid—sins mortally. Indeed, such a person is more atheistic than one who intellectually denies the existence of God but is perhaps moved by compassion for the suffering of an innocent.
One cannot exclude the possibility of someone believing themselves to be an atheist because they reject a false idea of God presented to them by false Catholics or heretics, which they believe to be characteristic of Christianity. Let us admit that a God who allows an infinity of calamities, where millions of innocents fall victim to abortion, and who does not listen to us when we call upon Him, can be seen as merciful. However, to avoid feeling mocked or to ensure that wrongdoers do not think they can escape justice, wouldn’t it be prudent to clarify the exact meaning of mercy while tempering it with that of justice?
The phenomenon of atheism has profoundly influenced European culture in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly through the French materialists of the 1700s, Marxist Prometheanism, Comte’s positivist scientism, and Russian nihilism. This reached a paroxysmal peak in the early 20th century with Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch, followed by an impressive bleakness with the logical empiricists of England and Austria, and a brutal outcome in animalistic tendencies with Freudian pansexualism, as well as Nazi racism, which stands as the final and infernal culmination of all the poisons progressively unleashed over the centuries by Cartesian cogito.
The atheist regards the believer as a child, clinging to fanciful dreams and untethered by reality. They see them as naïve visionaries, lost in individualistic pursuits, presumptuous fools trapped in self-deception, a frustrated soul yearning for meaning yet unable to grasp it. In the atheist's eyes, the believer dwells not in the realm of the tangible but in the whimsical landscapes of imagination. They worship an illusory God, follow a fictitious legislator, and seek rewards from a phantom source. They repent for sins that exist only in their minds, finding comfort in delusions spun from the threads of their fantasies.
Instead of embracing the happiness of this life, the believer neglects it, hoping for a celestial joy that does not exist and fearing a hell that is merely a figment of imagination. They speak and pray to a God who is nowhere to be found, convinced they receive revelations from this nonexistent deity. They believe these revelations impart knowledge of the path that all humanity must tread to attain eternal bliss after death.
They look to this fantastic divine figure for the impossible liberation from inevitable hardships such as death, injustice, and the misfortunes of life. They claim to possess knowledge that transcends any reasonable understanding of the origins and end of the world—matters that ultimately hold no interest for us, as we are called to live in the present, not in the past or the future.
Imagining themselves to be guided and supported by the supernatural grace of an imaginary God, the believer, in the eyes of the atheist, expends all their human effort while refusing to earn merit through diligent work among others and within society. Instead, they lazily and comfortably rest upon their weaknesses, connecting with fellow believers in a community known as the "Church," which functions like a state within a state. This Church presumes to instruct the state, in the name of supposed divine revelation, on what it should do for the realization of the common good.
Marx foresaw that once humanity overcame the crisis of growth, which had led it to liberate itself from religion to reclaim its alienated essence, following Feuerbach's framework, free men would cease to use the word "God" as a term referring to an imaginary entity produced by humanity enslaved by an oppressive class.
And this is precisely what has been occurring since the last atheistic campaign organized by the Stalinist regime in the 1950s. Today, no one within the realm of atheism actively engages in a polemic against religion or advocates for the reasons supporting atheism.
The paradox is that while there exists a pseudo-theological discourse that offends and distorts the dignity of divine majesty and its attributes in various ways, this misleading, corrosive, and mystifying critique—horribile dictu—actually comes from modernist theologians. These theologians shamelessly propagate false ideas about God and His attributes that conveniently align with atheism, such as certain forms of negative or apophatic theology, masquerading as mysticism, which is nothing more than a cunningly disguised variant of atheism.
The last century has witnessed a striking increase in young people who abandon their faith and embrace atheism and irreligion, often remaining in this dismal state for a lifetime, without doubts, reconsiderations, or regrets. Conversely, many young individuals who make sacred commitments before God—whether in marriage, the priesthood, or religious life—eventually stray from their vows and defect after a time.
This phenomenon is astonishing in that while theism is built on solid foundations of reason and faith, atheism emerges from human pride, which rests on shifting sands. Yet, it often happens that the weak and fickle goodwill of certain young people, despite being illuminated by the truth and supported by grace, collapses at a critical moment. In contrast, the obstinate and brazen malice of the faithless continues to endure, bolstered by the devil.
The Buddhist Apophaticism
Negative theology asserts what is fitting for God through an initial recognition of Him as the first cause, the prime being, and the ultimate end. It casts aside the finite to embrace the infinite, the material to exalt the spiritual, and the relative to uphold the absolute. It favors the simple over the composite, the perfect over the imperfect, and freedom over necessity. It prioritizes being above becoming, the immutable over the mutable, and the impassible over the passible. Ultimately, it affirms the One and the identical while denying duality.
Now, there exists a form of apophaticism, or negative theology, which risks tipping into atheism due to its extremism. This is Buddhism, with its fundamental concept of Nirvana. Buddhism represents an extreme form of Indian Brahmanic apophaticism, in which a radical process of negation occurs among the Brahmins, yet it retains some affirmations for the average believer.
What indeed happens in Brahmanism? The sage (yogi) distinguishes two proclamations of Brahman: there is Brahman saguna and Brahman nirguna. Guna means “attribute.” Brahman saguna refers to Brahman with attributes; Brahman nirguna refers to Brahman without attributes. This means that the Hindu sage attributes absolutely nothing to Brahman, denying all things, even being (from sat, the Sanskrit root for to be), although being is fundamental in affirmative theology. Indeed, Brahman is defined as Sat-Citta-Ananda: Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Happiness).
In Buddhism, Nir signifies the negation of vana, which means "forest," a symbol of multiplicity. Thus, it represents the denial and extinction of the multitude of earthly desires, allowing for an opening to the infinite Light. The Buddha is the Enlightened One. Does not Scripture proclaim that "God is light"? And is light not the symbol of truth? (1 John 1:5). The Buddha commenced his mission after experiencing this beatific Light, which is Nirvana [4]. Does this connection have anything to do with atheism?
However, it is essential to recognize that the pinnacle of wisdom (vidya) in Hinduism lies in the realization achieved after a journey of purification, liberation, and enlightenment under the guidance of a yogi. At the root of one's empirical self (atmàn) and material individuality (jivan) lies absolute self-consciousness (the Self), which is Brahman and corresponds to Cartesian self-consciousness, the cogito. Indeed, both the cogito and Brahmanic self-consciousness do not emerge from an awareness of the world but are forms of self-awareness that precede my knowledge of the world, akin to divine self-consciousness. Thus, both Descartes and Brahmanism place the human self (or human ego) in the position of the divine self (or divine Atman).
However, the situation is not so certain. The pantheistic outcome of Brahmanism as articulated by Shankara in the 8th-9th centuries, as well as Cartesianism with German idealism, presents a possible interpretation. Yet, for Brahmanism as seen in Ramanuja in the 13th century, and for Cartesianism as it manifested in figures like Cardinal de Bérulle, Malebranche, or Blessed Antonio Rosmini, there exists an interpretation that aligns with theism and epistemological realism.
In any case, it is essential to counter idealism by affirming that God knows the external world based on His creative self-consciousness. While God perceives the world within the depths of His being, a human arrives at self-consciousness or self-awareness only on the premise of prior knowledge of the external world.
As for Buddhism, it surpasses Hinduism by entirely abolishing even Brahman saguna. At the end of this deconstructive process, one might question what remains, raising suspicions of atheism. Moreover, Nirvana, which ignores conceptual objectivity on one hand while presenting itself as an absolute and ineffable subjective bliss on the other, leads to doubts about whether the Buddha managed to liberate himself from Brahmanic self-consciousness. Nevertheless, we must consider that even the Buddhist, as a reasonable human being, implicitly acknowledges the existence of God and pays homage to Him through a life of austere monasticism characterized by deep compassion for human suffering and a vigorous commitment to the practice of human fraternity and spiritual liberation.
The Buddhist, regarding the discussion of God, prefers silence. However, if he must speak, he uses nonsensical phrases, consciously avoiding vulgarity, obscenities, and blasphemy. For example, he might say, "The birds jump according to the square of the hypotenuse." And why is this? By what right? It’s important to remember that for the Buddhists, a word holds meaning only when it refers to something expressible in language. If one attempts to express the inexpressible, the words lose their significance. Since the essence of God cannot be expressed in words, any word is as good as another; thus, it is just as valid to string words together at random, and we might be more accurate in describing God than if we employed carefully crafted expressions derived from human reason.
There is no doubt that Buddhism approaches the relationship with God from the realm of mystical experience—understood correctly, not as an original, pre-conceptual self-consciousness that does not exist and is merely a pantheistic fantasy, but rather as an inner intellectual and emotional illumination. In this context, the theological concept, which the Buddhist can form as well as any reasonable person, serves as an intentional mediation of that experience. Yet, the mystic refrains from using the words that signify this concept. Thus, the concept is not absent; otherwise, one would descend into animalistic psychism. Rather, the mystic chooses to bask in the silence of the light and peace of Nirvana instead of articulating the rational concept of Nirvana.
On the surface, Buddhism may resemble atheism in that it lacks a theology and focuses solely on morality. However, both its moral framework and the spirituality that animates it imply a profound thirst for God and an aspiration toward Him, as well as a mystical experience of His presence, manifested in the two fundamental notions of buddhi and nirvana.
The former evokes ideas of intellect, knowledge, illumination, and truth, while the latter represents the peace and ineffable bliss that follow the intuition of truth. Furthermore, Buddhism's moral premises and consequences, given their rectitude and austerity, clearly demonstrate that the Buddhist draws from Nirvana the wellspring of moral rectitude and the strength for practicing good. Thus, through his actions and moral conduct, it is apparent that the Buddhist comes into contact with God, even if he remains silent on this matter, lacking a theological proclamation or possessing a purely negative theology.
In contrast, atheism inherently produces deleterious effects in the moral realm, as its apophatic stance does not imply a sense of unworthiness to speak of God, as the Buddhist might. Rather, it embodies a genuine disdain for divine majesty and, consequently, a contempt for divine laws. When an atheist does not resort to outrageous insults and blasphemies against God—actions absent in Buddhism—it signifies either a contradiction in their beliefs or a rare form of decorum.
Even if an atheist shows respect for others and engages in charitable acts, this behavior is not a logical consequence but rather a happy inconsistency with their atheism, which should, in principle, lead them to harbor hatred toward others, themselves, and the universe, as it is all created by God. Alternatively, it may suggest that they are not true atheists but rather individuals, like Buddhists, who are unable to speak of God.
Neither the atheist nor the Buddhist discusses God. Yet, an abyss separates them: the Buddhist indicates a belief in the ineffable God through his moral conduct. The atheist, despite claiming to be a believer, reveals his lack of belief through a dissolute and immoral life.
P. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, June 5, 2021
source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/la-questione-della-teologia-negativa.html
Invitation to Consult:
June 3-4, 2021, Rome - Conference on Negative Theology for the 21st Century
Notes:
[1] Rahner proposes a concept of God as "absolute mystery," in which there is nothing to conceive: Corso fondamentale sulla fede, Edizioni Paoline, Rome 1978, pp. 41-42; 71-90; Esercizi spirituali per il sacerdote. Iniziazione all’esistenza sacerdotale, Queriniana, Brescia 1974, pp. 9-15.
[2] Similarly, Giuseppe Barzaghi states that "there exists the concept of that which is without concept." However, if the object is without concept, Barzaghi falls into contradiction because he simultaneously conceives to define, yet does not conceive because the object is inconceivable. Cf. Oltre Dio ovvero omnia in omnibus. Pensieri su Dio, il divino, la deità, Giorgio Barghigiani Editore, Bologna 2000, p. 66.
[3] Critica della ragion pura, Edizioni Laterza, Bari 1965, p. 491.
[4] As reported by Radhakrishnan in La filosofia indiana, Edizioni Ashram Vidya, Rome 1993, pp. 345-346.