Logic and mysticism

 

Credit: Rajasekhar1961

Some stray reflections…

Can the existence of God be proved by logic? As in “A is A”, “A is not non-A”, and so on. Probably not. For two reasons. On the immediate level, logic is an abstraction created by the human mind. On the more general level, logic works (kind of) because of a family likeness with the outside world. But logic in this sense seems to be present in all (or most) possible worlds, including the godless ones. That´s because “to be real” simply means “it is possible to abstract the laws of logic from it”. For instance, we could imagine a chaotic universe in which the particles swirl around at random. There would still be a difference between one random state (say all particles move “left”) and another one (say all particles move “right” instead). Hence, “A is not non-A” would still apply. I suppose a pantheist could argue that the underlying “order” must come from some kind of world-soul, i.e. the order expressed in these very laws of logic. But a theist probably wouldn´t want to go there, since a “god” who creates a never ending progression of random chaotic states clearly isn´t the god of theism! But that simply shows that reality-logic is possible without a theist god. Hence, the mere existence of the reality-fact “A is not non-A” can´t by itself prove the existence of God. I´m not sure if any apologist really claims this when the chips are down, but the argument “where does logic come from” is often used – almost at random – by YouTube Christian activists.

Now, “logic” can mean many different things. In the vernacular, so to speak, it usually means something like “reason”, “reasonable”, “order”, “natural laws”, “consistent”, and so on. But is Christianity a logical religion in this sense? In some ways, it seems to violate even the basic laws of logic. What about the Trinity, for instance? How can God be one person and three persons simultaneously? What about the Incarnation, or Luther´s view of the ubiquity of Christ´s body (including its human nature) throughout the cosmos? Or the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation? Where is the “logic” in all this, I wonder? Here is the thing: Christianity could be true *even if illogical*. Maybe the universe simply isn´t logical? Except in the very basic sense of “Trinity means not non-Trinity”.

In general, philosophy can´t prove anything. With apologies to Richard Dawkins: “Philosophy, is that even a subject?”. And theology is simply mutant philosophy. Nothing real can be proven (or inferred) unless it´s based on the empirical. It´s experience all the way down. I suppose philosophy is attractive to theists (but sometimes also to atheists) since God isn´t an “object” or “experience” in the empirical realm, but the (purported) cause of everything empirical (and hence all objects and experiences), and therefore can only be proven philosophically. Well, I disagree. You still haven´t proven anything by philosophical reasoning. You may be able to infer the existence of God from some features of the natural world (this would be the design argument), but that´s strictly speaking empirical. And probably quite weak as an inference, if you have no experience *at all* of God´s existence. (Inferring evolution from the fossil series is surely different, since we have experience of micro-evolution or change in general. Inferring a watch-maker from a watch is even easier, since you presumably met the watch-maker personally if you bought a watch circa 1800!)

The best evidence for God is therefore…surprise…empirical experiences of God. Mystical experiences, paranormal phenomena. That kind of stuff. Now, a theist might argue that this cannot prove God, since no human – us being finite -  can experience the infinite. Indeed, an atheist could argue the same thing! Therefore, philosophy is needed anyway to prove the existence of such an infinite god. A number of counter-arguments present themselves. If you believe in revelation, how is *that* different from any other “finite” experience? The resurrection of Jesus was also “finite”. How do you know that mystical experiences are finite? Maybe they are infinite, their infinite nature being one of the reasons the mystic can´t readily communicate them. But let´s say they are finite and hence can´t “really” prove God.

So what?

Maybe humans can´t prove the existence of the Infinite. Maybe the Infinite doesn´t even exist (although I doubt it). Mystical experiences can still be empirical evidence for other dimensions than our own, perhaps populated with spirit-beings. We could call them “pagan gods”, if you like. This simply means that monotheism can´t be proven. And the fact that mystical experiences are often different, could be an argument against exclusivism and in favor of pluralism.

Maybe we live in a polytheist cosmos. At the very least, that´s what empirical spiritual experience seem to suggest. A polytheist cosmos with some kind of difficult-to-grasp underlying unity.

Somehow, that´s a stunning revelation all by itself.