Roll up, folks.
We now move one the fourth R – what I call Mysterian Resistance (or Mysterianism). The Resistor is resisting the pressure to resolve the apparent contradiction, i.e. changing one of the apparently contradictory beliefs. Unlike the Redirector, the Resister doesn’t ignore the apparent inconsistency. And unlike the Resolver, he doesn’t think there’s a reasonable way to make the apparent contradiction go away. So the Resistor resists – he makes his stand – he comes up with a rationale for keeping his apparently contradictory beliefs.
There are a few other – in my view very unpromising – kinds of Resistance other than Mysterian Resistance. For these, see ch. 4 of this excellent book. (Stay tuned for a review.) I’m going to ignore them in this series, because I think they’re unpromising, because Anderson refutes them well enough (in the above book), and because I think Mysterian Resistance is and always has been by far the most popular kind of Resistance. In fact, I think that because of Mysterianism, Resistance has long been the most popular of the four R’s in Christianity, and least among intellectuals.
Here are some examples of Mysterianism in action:
Someone: How can the entire body of a man be present in each crumb of this wafer?
Mysterian: I don’t know, but it’s a mystery.
Someone: How can a man be fully divine?
Mysterian: I don’t know, but it’s a mystery.
Someone: How there be one God if there are not one but three divine persons?
Mysterian: I don’t know, but it’s a mystery.
There will be different reactions to this. Many philosophers I know would think these are cheap and lazy answers, and would be quick to suggest a Rational Reconstructions of these doctrines. Well, appeals to mystery certainly can be, and often are no more than intellectual laziness. A “mystery” – whatever it is – is a good thing. Some people are simply not worried about consistency, and are supremely confident that the doctrine in question is true and important.
But Mysterianism is far more than a refuge for the intellectually careless. One must remember that some people are down on Rational Reconstructions (briefly: sophisticated and precise, and allegedly defensible versions of religious doctrines) for philosophical reasons, and/or because they are simply convinced that all such Reconstructions distort the real Doctrine in question, as require by the authoritative Source(s). (With Protestants, usually the Bible. With Catholics, the Bible and/or the doctrinal pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church.) Furthermore, a sophisticated Mysterian holds that it is reasonable to believe an apparent contradiction. He needn’t be intellectually lazy at or, or (this is a different vice) a mystery-monger (the more contradictory the better). He may eschew contradictions in some, but not in all circumstances. And the most thoughtful Mysterians have stories to tell about why their Resistance is reasonable after all.
Mysterianism is worth exploring – it comes in different kinds, has a long history, and there are worries about the reasonableness of it. But I think it’d be good to start off with a look at a recent book which in my view contains the most well-developed mysterian theory to date.
Next time: A review of James Anderson‘s Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status.
