A friend of mine from L.U. told me that our mind is surrounded by three forces – the knowable, the unknown and the unknowable. Everybody has an idea what is known, right? And we all ponder the unknown. But the unknowable will remain…er…unknowable. God and mysticism belong to the unknowable.
“Ding-an-sich”
This theistic pretext is not new. Time immemorial, the mystics believe that anything that transcends human understanding is unknowable. That’s what they call the limitation of the scope of human knowledge and for them this will always remain close.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that human knowledge has limits. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant reorganized traditional metaphysical duality between noumena (reality) and phenomena (appearance). Noumena are the nature of “things in themselves” (ding-an-sich). They are considered to be unknowable. Empirical application can only work on the world of phenomena. Beyond it empiricism will just lead to contradictions, fallacies and paradoxes.
Kingdom of God.
The world of noumena is the void kingdom of the unexplainable God. Here is also where supernatural and mysticism thrives. This is God’s refuge against the inquiries of the skeptics. That’s why believers say that God is shrouded by mystery. According to classical theism, God is transcendent. He is beyond human knowledge and mysticism is a small peek, a taste of the unknowable that will only connect man to the idea of God. This is the knowledge of something beyond the scope of man’s intellectual comprehension.
Yet Christians will knock at your door to talk to you about the unknowable God and the Bible tells us that man was created by God from His image and likeness. Strange isn’t it?
If it’s unknowable, then how did the mystics know that it exists? According to Nathan Branden, “To claim that a thing is unknowable, one must first know that it exist – but then one already has knowledge of it, to that extent.”
The German idealist G.W.F. Hegel (1771-1831) rejected Kant’s thing-in-itself and his noumenal world by arguing that Kant’s claim of the unknowable was a clear contradiction of Kant’s limit of knowledge. To claim the existence of the unknowable is to claim knowledge of the unknowable, in which case it cannot be unknowable.
The concept of a so-called “unknowable” or limits of knowledge is nothing but a product of languid minds and the realm of the noumena is just a wonderland where God and believers can hide from the closing gap of intellectual scrutiny.
Until next time.
John the Atheist
“Ding-an-sich”
This theistic pretext is not new. Time immemorial, the mystics believe that anything that transcends human understanding is unknowable. That’s what they call the limitation of the scope of human knowledge and for them this will always remain close.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that human knowledge has limits. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant reorganized traditional metaphysical duality between noumena (reality) and phenomena (appearance). Noumena are the nature of “things in themselves” (ding-an-sich). They are considered to be unknowable. Empirical application can only work on the world of phenomena. Beyond it empiricism will just lead to contradictions, fallacies and paradoxes.
Kingdom of God.
The world of noumena is the void kingdom of the unexplainable God. Here is also where supernatural and mysticism thrives. This is God’s refuge against the inquiries of the skeptics. That’s why believers say that God is shrouded by mystery. According to classical theism, God is transcendent. He is beyond human knowledge and mysticism is a small peek, a taste of the unknowable that will only connect man to the idea of God. This is the knowledge of something beyond the scope of man’s intellectual comprehension.
Yet Christians will knock at your door to talk to you about the unknowable God and the Bible tells us that man was created by God from His image and likeness. Strange isn’t it?
If it’s unknowable, then how did the mystics know that it exists? According to Nathan Branden, “To claim that a thing is unknowable, one must first know that it exist – but then one already has knowledge of it, to that extent.”
The German idealist G.W.F. Hegel (1771-1831) rejected Kant’s thing-in-itself and his noumenal world by arguing that Kant’s claim of the unknowable was a clear contradiction of Kant’s limit of knowledge. To claim the existence of the unknowable is to claim knowledge of the unknowable, in which case it cannot be unknowable.
The concept of a so-called “unknowable” or limits of knowledge is nothing but a product of languid minds and the realm of the noumena is just a wonderland where God and believers can hide from the closing gap of intellectual scrutiny.
Until next time.
John the Atheist
4 comments:
"
If it’s unknowable, then how did the mystics know that it exists? According to Nathan Branden, 'To claim that a thing is unknowable, one must first know that it exist – but then one already has knowledge of it, to that extent.'
"
Let me put it another way: To claim that a thing is knowable is to presuppose that you know the unknowable - i.e, that you have drawn the line between this two domains!
So please - what you posted is a non-starter. Atheist or not, when they approach the question of God from the P.O.V of Pure Reason will eventually prove to be inadequate.
Your use of Kant and Hegel, two great German intellectuals, is a bastardisation of their ideas. I suspect that you have no idea as to the implications of your misinterpretations.
I suggest you approach the whole "problem of God" from the position of hermeneutics, and not solely settle on "metaphysics" and "epistemology."
When preachers approach you with their Bibles, talking about a God that is to you unknowable (which presupposes that you have an idea of knowable God), that is surely indecency on their part. But that does not necessarily deny their beliefs! Their indecency is not an evidence against their belief. Is not that clear to you?
For a person who use an annonymous name...yeah right. Hermeneutics? Are you serious?
Anyway, thanks for dropping by Mr. Anon.
"The concept of a so called unknowable or limits of knowledge is nothing but a product of languid minds and the realm of the noumena is just a wonderland where God and believers can hide from the closing gap of intellectual scrutiny."
Unfortunately, your very own conclusion can also work against you. On the one hand, you affirmed that the "unknowable or limits of knowledge is nothing but a product of languid minds." On the other hand, I wonder, how come you know all this? Do you presuppose that you have certain knowledge that it ("unknowable or limits of knowledge") does not exist?
"...and the realm of the noumena is just a wonderland where God and believers can hide from the closing gap of intellectual scrutiny." But then again, spare my curiousity, can I ask: Is this a statement of fact or just sheer speculation or an unsubstantiated assumption at that, in which case it is highly debatable.
That's why I don't believe in a so-called "realm of the unknowable" or "noumena", because its really a contradicting concept.
Beside, I never claim that there is a so-called "unknowable realm" so I'm not presupposing anything @ carlyle. For me there is only the known and the unknown (for now) not an unknowable.
Have a nice day.
Post a Comment