It seems that humans have a desire to understand everything, and yet we are continually confronted with questions and experiences which we are unable to grasp. The absurdity of our experiences, the inability to grasp the causes which precede us; all this could lead either to frantic pursuit of certainty, where all causes of confusion are explained away by the most probably explanation, or otherwise to an acceptance of our limitations, including our inability to grasp what lies beyond us. It could be argued that Maimonides was faced with a similar tension. A question emerged for him: how could the Jewish world-view and its reliance on scripture be integrated within the rise of rational philosophy and its demand for scientific and demonstrative arguments? After all, doctrinal teachings could be considered absurd when viewed through the lens of philosophy. But instead of solving the tension by proving the coherence of doctrinal beliefs through philosophical argument, Maimonides seems to suggest that some concerns, especially those of a theological nature, are unable to be accounted for through demonstration nor through any other means.
Maimonides argues that a reason why theology and philosophy are unable to complement each other is theology’s insistence on literal readings of scripture. To take the words of the Torah literally is to allow them to be fit for premises in demonstrative proofs. For example, using the propositions “eternal God” and “eternal will” is, as Avicenna demonstrates, what inevitably leads to the conclusion that the world is eternal as well. However, such a conclusion is in conflict with Jewish faith, which, among others, holds that the world was created at a certain time. Maimonides resolves this conflict through his method of Negative Theology.
In essence, Negative Theology aims to view scriptural teachings as useful indications rather than definitive descriptions. Maimonides argues that it is in itself a logical mistake to think that our knowledge is compatible with the knowledge of God. Humans are unable to fully grasp how God operates; rather, all that we can hope to understand are the effects of God’s actions upon us. We cannot infer on the basis of human knowledge what it means to say that God is eternal; all that we can safely propose from this is that God is not subject to the limitations of time. Proposing a proposition which we do not fully comprehend as a premise for a demonstrative proof is absurd. Therefore, regarding things that go beyond our understanding, we should allow them to be ineffable, and not be tempted by inclination to idolize an explanation only in so far as it allows for a false sense of certainty.
25yt££&*** 