{"id":37410,"date":"2016-03-30T10:02:04","date_gmt":"2016-03-30T14:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=37410"},"modified":"2016-03-30T10:02:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-30T14:02:04","slug":"10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-trinity-3-take-mystery-appeals-mystery-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-trinity-3-take-mystery-appeals-mystery-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity \u2013 #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to \u201cmystery\u201d \u2013 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"cartoondonkeysm\"For a few of the most serious and clever among us, mystery-mongering dies hard. They will stubbornly resist my previous attack on positive mysterianism<\/a> about the Trinity, kicking back hard.<\/p>\n

I knew all along<\/em> that the Trinity was going to be mysterious. And so now that I’ve discovered one way in which it is mysterious, well, I do<\/em> celebrate it. You can rub my face in the apparent contradictions all you want, but it smells just fine to me.<\/strong> I celebrate<\/em> the mystery of God; I don’t try to explain it away. You want to know: in the New Testament, is Jesus numerically identical with his Father, or are they numerically distinct? The scriptural answer is: yes<\/em>!<\/strong>\u00a0I mean, yes to both<\/em>. Not my fault if you don’t like the scriptural answer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What this last part ignores is that it is uncharitable<\/strong> to any author, human or divine, to attribute a contradiction to him. Incoherent readings of a text should be a last resort, and the less likely we think it is that an author is confused, the more reluctant we should be to attribute a contradiction to him. We must be sure we’ve really discovered “the scriptural answer,” rather than foisting our own confusion onto the text.<\/p>\n

Some will reply that because God is so great, God will have to<\/em> speak in apparently contradictory ways<\/strong>, if he’s to self-reveal to any significant degree.<\/p>\n

Any theist, of course, thinks that God is too great to be fully understood by humans. But it is by no means obvious that if God self-reveals, God will be forced into saying apparently contradictory things to humans. The idea is that our conceptual scheme is too crude; we’re unable to make certain distinctions, and if we made them, then pairs of statements like “It is not the case that Jesus just is the Father” and “Jesus just is the Father” would turn out to be consistent with one another after all.<\/p>\n

\"boy-1261760sm\"But for all we know, God has purposely avoided<\/strong> overwhelming us with information about him, revealing only what will seem coherent to our limited minds, like a parent who explains to his toddler that babies are made when<\/strong> “Mommies and daddies love each other very much and kiss and snuggle.” Witnessing sexual intercourse, or having it described to him in detail may well overwhelm the little tot, both emotionally and conceptually. (“Daddy’s hurting mommy… but he’s not!”) Thus, he gets the kiddie-explanation, and it’s good enough for the time being.<\/p>\n

Some will object that surely God loves to humble us.<\/strong> He assaults our pride by revealing what can’t be understood, forcing us to trust in him, and to walk away from the demands of our sinful, damaged minds.<\/p>\n

I reply that inevitably, with things as they are, there will be plenty of God’s actions and omissions that “can’t be understood”<\/strong> in the sense that we can’t explain<\/em> them, because we don’t know or even can’t grasp some of his relevant motives. The child doesn’t understand much of what the parents do and say. But revealing what can’t be understood in the sense of telling the child something which for all the child can tell is incoherent<\/strong>… that seems<\/em> rather cruel, and so seems<\/em> wrong. I’d like the mysterian to tell us just where scripture tells us that God actually does this<\/strong>, and it seems<\/em> like something a perfect being wouldn’t do. (And no, Isaiah 55:8-9 will not do; it does not say that.)<\/p>\n

“OK, never mind why,” the mysterian may reply. “Perhaps we can’t know God’s motives here. But in fact<\/em>, God has<\/em><\/strong> revealed paradoxes to us.”<\/p>\n

But this just ignores that for every single paradox<\/strong> which the mysterian claims that the texts force on us, other Christians – serious, dedicated, honest, well-trained, and fully informed ones – think those texts admit of various non-paradoxical (i.e. seemingly coherent) readings. These will enjoy a great advantage over<\/strong> the mysterian’s apparently incoherent reading, which is that they don’t<\/em> strongly appear to be false! Of course, there’s no simple formula for discovering the best interpretation of a text, and it is conceivable<\/em> that we’re forced to a seemingly incoherent reading.<\/p>\n

My parting shot against positive mysterianism<\/strong> takes the form of simply pointing out what it takes, practically speaking, to be a mysterian. Positive mysterians ought to consider how their views work in practice<\/strong>. Consider any the paradox or mystery of the form P and not-P. At any point in your thought life<\/strong>, you’re in one of four mental positions<\/strong>, when it comes to this particular paradox.\"mysterian<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. thinking that P and thinking that not-P – (This is the stance the mysterian thinks God demands of you.)<\/li>\n
  2. thinking that P (and not thinking that not-P)<\/li>\n
  3. thinking that not-P (and not thinking that P)<\/li>\n
  4. not thinking that P and not thinking that not-P (Either you’re thinking about something else, or you’re not thinking at all.)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Position 1 is a difficult trick. Some can do it, but it is unnatural, and it hurts. Soon, one half gives out, and one slides back down to 2 or 3. But if you arrive at 2 or 3, you’re disobeying God’s demands. Thus, you must push back up to 1. But it’s too hard to stay there. Repeat a few times, and you’re exhausted. You must retreat to 4, and spend most of your time there.<\/p>\n

    Many, taught mysterian theology, will simply camp out at 4<\/strong>, hardly ever trying to climb. But the theologically-inclined will choose to think<\/em> about God. Getting up a head of steam, they ascend to 1. But every time, they soon find themselves back on 2 or 3. But 2 or 3 are an embarrassing place to be. 2 and 3 go against each other, and each goes against 1; standing at either 2 or 3 is a double failure. Eventually, one slides back down to 4.<\/p>\n

    Self-deception<\/strong> is an option now. Actively assure yourself that you’re at 1 (that’s where you mean<\/em> to be, after all) though you are in fact almost always at either 2 or 3. But this too is hard for most to maintain. Thinking<\/em> as a mysterian, then, is painful and ever-shifting, and always tends to poop out in defeat, settling into 4.<\/p>\n

    What about believing<\/em><\/strong>? There are four parallel positions, which we can represent like this, using “B:__” for “believing that __”.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. B:P and B:not-P<\/li>\n
    2. B:P (and not-B:not-P)<\/li>\n
    3. B:not-P (and not-B:P)<\/li>\n
    4. not-B:P and not-B:not-P<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      But the case of believing is interestingly different<\/strong>. Unlike thinking, believing is not directly voluntary; one’s beliefs are determined by one’s perceived evidence. So long as the evidence seems both strong and evenly balanced, one will believe that P and not-P. But this\u00a0strongly<\/em> seems false, as it seems to be a contradiction, and it seems that all contradictions are false! Something must give. Soon, one’s belief is pushed out of 1, down to either 2 or 3. Here’s the interesting thing. Given that you have significant evidence, you will<\/em> have a settled belief<\/strong> about this subject, even when you’re not actively thinking about it. 4 is not an option for the theologically tutored. But 1 can’t be sustained for long. So generally, your belief will be at 2 or 3<\/strong>. Which? One may alternate. But at any given time, one will find oneself whichever generally seems to have the stronger evidence. And that may shift depending on which scripture you’re reading at the moment, or what you’re thinking about then.<\/p>\n

      Speaking<\/em><\/strong> is different than believing and thinking, and speaking can hide these mental agonies from others. A mysterian can put up a good front, consistently saying<\/em> both P and not-P. Granted, this will sound ridiculous to many Christians, and she may not be able to get away with it in some Christian settings, depending on just what P is. But at least in the mysterian crowd, she can consistently say<\/em> P and not-P, thereby displaying her (apparent) obedience<\/strong> to the Word of God, which (she thinks) demands the paradoxical belief. But her speech most often masks that her belief<\/em>-state is 2 or 3, with her thoughts cycling through all of 1-4, as described above.<\/p>\n

      This is what you sign up for, if you decide to be a mysterian about the Trinity. In brief, your mind has nowhere to rest. <\/strong><\/p>\n

      What’s the alternative? One breaks out of these agonies by re-examining the matter until<\/strong> one’s view of the evidence shifts, making either P or not-P stand out as the true one; then, you deny the other. In this way, speaking, believing, and thinking are restored to unity, and the mountain shrinks down to a friendly plain. The mysterian will tell you that this can’t or shouldn’t happen, but a great number of Christians will tell you that to the contrary, the plain is quite nice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      For a few of the most serious and clever among us, mystery-mongering dies hard. They will stubbornly resist my previous attack on positive mysterianism about the Trinity, kicking back hard. I knew all along that the Trinity was going to be mysterious. And so now that I’ve discovered one way in which it is mysterious,… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity \u2013 #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to \u201cmystery\u201d \u2013 Part 4<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":37413,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6,20,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-complaints","category-mystery","category-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37410","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37410"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37410\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37452,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37410\/revisions\/37452"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}