Preliminary Clarifications II & Response
The Athenean Stranger Says: Comprehend - Understand. My arguement is that we cannot comprehend (understand) god. NOT because we don't understand scriptures, philosphies, teachings etc. BUT becuase as human beings we do not have the capacity to understand god ... because he is transcendent. This is my arguement.
Transcendent - (Dictionary definition, with which I agree):
1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.
4. Philosophy. a. Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
b. Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental.
c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.
Worship - (again a dictionary definition, with which I agree) reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
Religion - (again a dictionary definition, with which I agree) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The Vendéen Response: Before I proceed with my responses to your last replies I will need to give additional information on the terms Comprehend and Transcendence, so that you may understand where I am starting from, and to ensure a complete understanding of these terms. In philosophy or in any system of thought, small errors lead to big ones. For this reason I will use Logic for precision and rigour so as to avoid confusion and ambiguity.
Comprehend in its proper meaning is apprehension by which we grasp or possesses the totality of an object in all its categories (e,g, substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and passivity). Transcendence on the other hand goes beyond the limits of any knowable categories (see aforementioned examples) and is thus surpassing.
It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge). In simplicity it means the inability to grasp or possess in totality or fullness a thing. To not understand and to not comprehend is not the same thing.
Therefore to equate the proposition “we cannot comprehend god” with the proposition “we cannot understand god” is a fallacy if comprehend and transcendence is understood properly. Not only is the equation fallacious in reasoning but it is also self refuting. Just by your use of the term God, we can assume that you understand in some level the concept of God (e.g. a higher being that is beyond or transcendent), if you did not, you would not even use the term God at all. The term God and the concept behind it would be meaningless to me and you since as you have said we cannot understand God. It rather proves that you have some level of understanding of the concept and term called God. To prove my point exactly, in one statement you are affirming that we cannot comprehend God, but on the other hand you are denying your self that affirmation by saying we cannot understand God. Hence your reasoning is self refuting and contradictory.
Hence to express that we cannot comprehend God in terms of His transcendence does not express an inability to understand God but rather it expresses that we can only understand God in a limited sense thereby presupposing some level or quantity of understanding.
This response I made is only preliminary. There is more to follow. I will add as time permits. I will say in anticipation that God can be understood, which includes what he wants (His will) in a general level in the natural sense. My demonstrations of this position will follow. I will also say that you need to exercise some caution with regards to Kant's understanding of transcendence which hinges on demonstrable errors found in his epistemology and metaphysics. I will also demonstrate these in due time.
In the meantime please wait for the completion of my replies to your arguments. More to follow.
Posts
