|
Actually, there is widespread disagreement about how, exactly, properties are ascribed to God. In philosophical theology, as far as I know, the via negativa is actually the least common opinion. It tends more to be held by mystics than philosophers. The most common is probably the analogical view, which holds that when we say that "God is good", for example, we mean that God is good in a way analogical to the way that humans are good. This was the view of Thomas Aquinas. The third view that I'm aware of is the unequivocal view, which happens to be the one I hold, and was also held by Duns Scotus. That is, when we say "God is good" we mean exactly the same thing as when we say that a human is good.
To reply more specifically to your objection, it's pretty clear from scripture that God is good; in fact, if there was one thing I'd want people to learn from scripture, it's that God is good. Moreover, it's clear both from scripture and from natural reason that it's better to be good than evil. Now, you are entirely correct to say that God always exceeds and escapes our expectations, but it would be more correct to parse this by saying that our concept of good might well be flawed rather than by saying that it is not true that God is good.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|