The Via Negativa (the way of negation) is a theological/philosophical position that emphasises a non-descriptive and negative series of terminology and concepts concerning God. It is the opposite of the Via Positiva (the positive way) which is generally the standard in scholastic works on the matter.

An example of the difference between the two ways is easily demonstrated:

Via Positiva “God is good”

Via Negativa “God is not not good”

The difference between the two is fairly obvious. The positive statement sounds very much like a proposition – this could therefore render it a testable hypothesis. For this to be so we must formulate a sense in which we can understand the terminology – what is God? and what is goodness? Many will argue that neither of these concepts are definable or testable therefore rendering the proposition nonsensical. If the proposition is meaningless then we must ask ourselves whether we ought to invest our time in it. In other words shouldn’t we simply abandon it and its constituent parts?

The Via Negativa very very simply can be defined as the approach to the Divine that considers the Divine by definition non-definable!

I.e. once we start to make definitive or positive statements about what the Divine is then we attempt to formularize the wholly abstract – and this inevitable leads to mistakes and errors and false propositions.

This has an interesting effect on discussions concerning Science and Religion. In a recent Channel 4 series of documentaries called “Christianity: A History” in the episode entitled “God and the Scientists” Neurobiologist Colin Blakemore discussed God-concepts (my terminology) and their relation to Scientific-Datum with Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno.

Blakemore was fascinated to discover that here with Consolmagno was a Scientist and Jesuit brother who saw no contradiction in believing in God (as espoused by the Bible) and the scientific worldview. (His speciality is Planetary Astronomy and Meteorites). He found a belief in God and a belief that the world/universe is several billions of years old was reconcileable. That evolution was not as Dawkins later argued a primary reason to not believe in God. “The Bible is not a scientific book” he argued and it should not be treated as such!

But, Blakemore asked, if this is the new modern face of the Catholic Church (and therefore not representative of all of Christendom – i.e. intelligent design advocates, creationists, biblical literalists etc.) why does the Church have such a bad record in its historical relationship with science?

Consolmagno’s answer was refreshingly simple. The scientific method looks, describes and attempts to explain and predict the workings of the universe. And the scientific paradigm of hypothesis and experimentation provides a series of checks and balances that allow scientists (indeed anyone) to place greater “factual” authority upon certain of its propositions than other initiatives (i.e. theology) can do. Whereas Theology and Philosophy by virtue of its methods is interpretive, speculative and narrative – in essence it is a form of literature and therefore is subject to the same problems. Consolmagno stated quite happily: The Church as an institution (like any other) was comprised of intellectual men who didn’t like to be told they were wrong.

Consolmagno’s proposition then was that science provides the objectivity around which theology and philosophy can shape itself and its doctrines and not vice versa. He once famously declared: “Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god.””

Blakemore though not convinced enough to suddenly want to adopt this rational religous approach, was somewhat pleasantly satisfied. But he had one nagging doubt: Isn’t your God then something of a plasticine God?

(In other words arent you just moving the goalposts in order to maintain your survival against insurmountable scientific evidence?)

Consolmagno responded that the Plasticine is not the divinity but the human mind. And this question and answer prompted this post and my speculations on it.

Blakemore assumed that the authority of scripture, the teaching tradition of the Church and centuries of theology rendered the God-concept solid. And that this solid concept – or objective ideal – was eventually challenged by scientific evidence. He wasnt altogether comfortable with the ineffability of God – which renders the God-concept outside of the scientific remit and which meant that rationalism could be reconciled with Faith to the extent that (as Steven Jay Gould argued) there could be partially overlapping magisteria (POMA’s) and there was no obstacle or contradiction to scientists having a religious belief, or that a religious belief must necessarily set one against the scientific worldview.

It seemed to me – and it would be an interesting (though ultimately futile) exercise to undertake – that some of the anti-religious sentiment expressed in certain quarters of the scientific world are based upon a God-concept that belongs to the Via Positiva and as such is a mistaken or error strewn objection. (If positive theology is meaningless then so too is a positive atheology). But the exercise would be futile on two grounds: 1) anti-religious fundamentalism as with all fundamentalisms is emotionally loaded, remove one reason for the sentiment and another will be discovered (i.e. my imgainary Dawkins may agree upon the abandonment of the Via Positiva but would still object to religion on other grounds, perhaps its tendency to group-think say). 2) As Gould acknowledged with his model of non and partially overlapping magisteria the scientific and religious laguage games are independent of each other, and as such a Via Negativa may (to use Wittgensteins phrase) Dissolve the question. But is this ever wholly satisfactory to the scientific worldview? If the God-concept is fluid then it is a question that can never be formulated, and ineffability doesnt sit easily with scientific rationalism.

The Via Negativa would seem to dissolve the debate and the controversy and allow a degree of freedom from this tedious culture war. It may or even ought to allow a synthesis of worldviews to flourish such as Gould hoped. But can the Via Negativa ever be reconciled with organised religion?