standing.  In his book, Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud begins Chapter II with a critique of those

religious who realize that religion is untenable, of those who try to defend it using "pitiful rearguard

actions."

 These supposedly religious, whom he calls "philosophers," are mix among the religious and

try to defend " the God of religion by replacing him by an impersonal, shadowy and abstract prin-

ciple. "

  To these people, Freud would say, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in

vain!"  He claims that no appeal may be made to men in the past who might have set the same example,

for he says these great men were obliged to act the way they did.  Freud thus avoids the mistake Feuerbach

made in calling the apophatic way a recent development.

Regardless of great men of the past, this critique stands today of theologians and philosophers

who present God as an abstract principle that is far removed from the anthropomorphic view of God as

father,  protector,  and  friend  that  permeates  Christian  scripture.    It  is  a  harsh  criticism  to  call  them

atheists, for even with the most apophatic belief system, there is always a striving toward God, even if

one does not feel comfortable in assigning characteristics to God.  A critique may be made of Freud that

these apophatic believers are the only ones who withstand his criticisms of the Christian religion. These

are the theists whose God cannot be reduced to a father figure for people in pursuit of the avoidance of

suffering.

Nagel

Freud's argument is a critique that can be made of modern theologians as well. In fact, Ernest

Nagel has made substantially the same claim as recently as 1997.  He maintains that theologians who

hold that the theistic thesis is literally meaningless, yet interpret God as a "symbolic rendering of human

ideals,"

 are proposing a god that most theists would not identify as the God in whom they believe.

Nagel  points  out  that  some  theologians  in  recent  years  " in  effect  preach  atheism  in  the  guise  of

language taken bodily from the Christian tradition."

  Without finding the specific theologians to whom

Nagel  refers,  one  may  still  posit  an  understanding  of  the  critique  in  light  of  the  knowledge  that  the

apophatic tradition has existed for centuries and has received this kind of critique before. The apophatic

tradition  believes  that  any  language  about  God  must  be  symbolic,  for  humans  cannot  actually  know

anything  about  how  God  really  is.    It  is  doubtful  that  apophatics  would  claim  that  God  is  simply  a

rendering  of  human  ideals,  however.   The  proponent  of  the  via  negativa  looks  for  God  beyond  the

human ideals that many theists place on God, such as "loving," "generous," "kind," and "just."

Discussion: Negative versus Affirmative on a Continuum

Both points of view have thus been analyzed and critiqued.  The apophatic tradition surfaced in

the first few centuries of the existence of Christianity, and it continued on through the mystical tradition

and into some theologians of today.  And the cataphatic tradition is identified by philosophers as the

belief of the "truly religious."  The apophatic way searches for God through knowing what God is not,

through  negative  propositions  that  provide  a  better  sense  of  the  divinity  and  the  glory  of  God.   The

cataphatic way feels free to claim that God is an exaltation of the best qualities of human kind, only on

a much grander scale.   Freud, Nagel, and Feuerbach have seemed to claim that the apophatic way is

merely a way of being an atheist and continuing to use religious language.  All three claim that the true

theist believes in a god that has human characteristics.  Feuerbach claims this god as the only kind of

god he can find useful. Freud's critique of Christianity depends upon the Christian god as being a father-

The Via Negativa: Merely Atheism in Disguise?   Nichole A. Weinfurtner

<<  <  GO  >  >>