Q&A: Divine Attributes
Divine Attributes
Question
Good evening, Rabbi,
why do you think God can be described positively?
And what about describing His essence? I see among religious thinkers claims that one cannot even say that He exists, because those are human concepts (I have no idea what they mean).
In short, I’d be happy to get a taste of how the concept of God is defined.
Thank you.
Answer
I see no obstacle to defining Him. Even those who hold the doctrine of negative theology speak about descriptions of Him, not definitions of Him.
The statement that He exists is simple and correct, and I see no problem with it. It seems to me that they too have no idea what they’re talking about. They confuse existence with occupying a place in space, or having mass, and so on. In essence, they are materialists.
You can define Him however you wish (depending on what you believe): creator of the world, omnipotent, giver of the Torah, the embodiment of goodness, the necessary existent, the One of the world, and so on.
Discussion on Answer
And why does saying that He exists not place Him in the group of existing entities, in which case that would be association?
A description is giving people an immediate experiential sense of what it is, like sight or touch. A definition is a description of characteristics. I can define a triangle as an object made up of three straight sides, and I can show it to someone or let him feel it. Above I gave definitions of God, and there is no problem with them. When you say that He is merciful, one might argue that this arouses direct connotations and perceptions, and that should not be applied to the Holy One, blessed be He (I don’t think so, but that is the claim of the negative theologians).
I think He can be described as merciful and gracious, and there is no reason or logic to interpret this in a negative-theological way.
Does the fact that He is in the group of existing entities mean association? Why? Where did that invention come from? Association is belief in two gods.
In lesson 3 on negative attributes, you explained that every description contains some element of association. For example, to say that He is red is to place Him in the group of all red entities. Maybe I wasn’t precise, and what is meant by association (two authorities) is association in all properties and not only in some of them (such as being red), which would only be a kind of association.
In any case, does saying that He exists associate Him with the rest of existing entities?
Those who argue that one cannot say He exists explain that because of His infinity, He is above all material and spiritual being. For example, here: http://ravsherki.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4995:2015-03-27-08-25-21&catid=22&Itemid=100512
Many thinkers from the Kookist stream say similar things, but I do not understand them.
Sorry for the mental overload, and thank you very much.
Hello,
If you don’t understand them, then why deal with it? Apparently they themselves also don’t understand themselves.
The linguistic-logical fact that some description or claim groups the Holy One, blessed be He, together with other entities has nothing to do with the problem of association, which is a theological problem.
– You wrote, why deal with it? Because I don’t know what to say when claims like these come up in discussions in my yeshiva (especially in study partnership on the Guide for the Perplexed).
– So what exactly is the theological problem?
That is exactly what I said. If you don’t know what to say, then don’t say anything. Why deal with it?
The theological problem is that we have received from the sages of monotheism that God is one and there are not two such beings.
And perhaps one more note. Even if you accept Maimonides’ doctrine of negation, according to which God cannot be described in human terms, the claim that He exists is not a description. A description relates to the form of the thing (its characteristics), whereas existence relates to the thing itself (its essence; the bearer of the characteristics; the object of which they are characteristics). Hence the refutation of the ontological proof for God’s existence, which assumes that existence is an attribute. I explained this in Two Carts, Gate Two.
Thank you. I’m eagerly awaiting the new books. Sabbath peace!
What is the difference between a description and a definition?
One more thing: I’ve seen in several places that you are willing to describe positively, like the kabbalists. What exactly does that mean? Could you give an example?