Though I Speak with the Tongue of Angels
Theophilus writes that he has come across an argument proposing that
since all human languages are designed to speak about concepts within this universe, and God is outside the universe, we cannot say anything sensible about God, whether true or false. The statements “God exists” and “God does not exist” are both nonsense.
What I find fascinating about that argument is that it presents a serious problem for all religions except Christianity.
My comment: The argument does not seem to makes sense on its own terms.
Men are either wholly natural things, that is, entirely explained in literal terms by materialistic processes, or they are not.
If not, then at least part of man, or part of the explanation of what he is, is supernatural, that is, non-literal, more than materialistic.
Only in the first case would it be true that human language would be a wholly human invention limited by human experience such that it could not refer to anything outside our experience, even by analogy.
In the second case, nothing prevents God from breathing into the human person the living souls which, being supernatural in origin, give us a set of experiences and concept that are true and meaningful and yet which cannot be reduce to literal materialistic experiences.
An analogue: Simplicio the fish says to his fellow fish that since all fishy languages are designed to speak about concepts within the sea, and the stars are outside the sea, we fish cannot say anything sensible about the stars, whether true or false. Even to say the stars exist is nonsense.
A second fish, Sophius, rises to the surface and sees the stars.
Being a scientifically advanced fish, Sophius soon deduces that the stars are the source of all atoms more complex than hydrogen, and that his body and his world is made of matter generated in stellar furnaces.
Hence our scientific Sophius fish, despite the protests of Simplicio fish, can deduce what is unknown from what is known and hence speak perfectly rationally about things utterly beyond any fish experience of the sea, and talk about the ‘super-sea’ topic of astronomy, including the behavior of the interior of the stars, which no fish has ever seen.
The stars are not in the sea, but starlight falls on the sea. The stars in that sense are, in fact, as much as part of the scenery of the sea, for example, churchgoing and ghost sightings and prophecy and prayer are part of the scenery of being human that all humans — except perhaps certain intellectuals — are all duly aware.
God is not in the universe, but He made the universe, and His revelation falls into the universe like starlight into the waves.
From this certain elements of His nature can be deduced.
Since we ourselves are made by Him in His image, we can imagine Him, using ourselves as model, much as a circular shadow, if somehow granted life, could imagine the sphere from which it is shed.
We live in the universe made for us, and moreover were made so that we could respond to His love and majesty correctly — in other words, we were made to praise Him which means we were made to be able to speak about Him correctly.
Hence the deduction that none of our speech can speak about Him is simply false. It is a deduction so stupid only an intellectual would make it. Is human experience outside human experience? Even if you think Abraham, who spoke to God, never existed, the people allegedly descended from Abraham do exist, and still speak of the conversation: now, that conversation either happened or did not, so that matter does not become meaningless merely because God is involved.
Simplicio, one hopes, is not assuming the laws of logic are based on experimental results, and hence only apply in areas were we have sense experience. Bogus. The laws of logic extend from sea to stars to the edge of the universe and beyond — to any realm that human speech can reach, in fact.
In any case, the weak and silly argument assumes God is too weak or too silly to think of a way to reveal Himself to us. It assumes that none of His handiwork, from stars to man to motes, says anything about Him.
The argument is circular.
Assuming that there is no God, and assuming men are creatures of nature only, and assuming we can only speak in literal terms about literal experiences we literally know, then, yes, it does follow that any figurative speech about matters too high for us would be meaningless.
But if men have free will, or any supernatural part to mind and soul, or any experience contemplating realities beyond the material, such as a mathematical truth or a metaphysical theory, then to speak of things above and outside the material universe is commonplace.
I would say that anything one cannot explain to a dog or pig touches a Platonic concept, and hence is more than merely material or mechanical in nature. It is a word, not merely a sign or call.
By that definition, nearly all human speech, everything except orders to fetch slippers, attack a burglar, or save Timmy from the well, is supernatural.
But to say that God does not exist therefore all human experience is natural and not supernatural and therefore human language cannot speak of God therefore God does not exist, merely assumes in the premise the answer to the question under consideration.
To say that God exists but that we cannot understand Him more than my pet cat understands me, on the other hand, does not bar theologians from discussing God meaningfully, nor does it prevent the cat from rubbing up against my leg and purring, or, more likely, clawing my ankle and hurting me.
The cat and I understand each other as one animal to another perfectly well. It is only the part of me that thinks like an angel, the rational part, the cat cannot grasp.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
