I think I’m a Mysterian. While researching for an article about different views of God, I stumbled across this quote by Einstein and resonated powerfully with it:
“The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
Full disclosure. I was the lead singer/drummer in a much sought-after band in the Bay Area in the early-mid sixties. The Chosen 5. Ugh. Trivia--? and the Mysterians was actually Sam the Sham and the Pharohs of "Wolly Bully" fame. One and the same. Last bit. Peter Beer and his wife Andrea have a new one. At 78, I'm a grandad. I thought one had to be old to be a grandad.
I love the stance of epistemological humility: that we, and our animal kin all have intellects bounded in one way or another.
Other names for mysterianism include 'cognitive closure', 'anti-constructive naturalism,' 'new mysterianism' and even 'transcendental naturalism' as McGinn himself calls it. Apparently, he uses this term because it keeps open the door to non-human intelligences having better luck than us.
It's a little hard not to think of Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), in this context, but, hey, my intelligence is bounded 😉
I complained to Claude about the term 'mysterianism' as it seems both squishy and to invoke something unnecessarily supernatural.
Claude replied thus:
The invocation of "mystery" is strategic. It's not mysticism in a supernatural sense, but a rigorous philosophical argument that:
• Some problems are not just currently unsolved, but unsolvable.
• Our cognitive limitations are fundamental, not temporary
• There are qualitative boundaries to human understanding
This rings so true. When reading some very smart philosophical writings on the origins of our universe, such people seem come to the most baffling conclusions, usually about immensely powerful beings. When I point out that we simply don't know enough, and if the Mysterians are correct may never know enough, about the origins of our universe to make any conclusions, they reject this idea: we have our logic and our maths, why shouldn't we extend those to things like the origins of the universe!
Interesting as always and I think it touches several of the ideas of the authors I’ve recently have been reading! Do you have any recommendation book-wise for an introduction to the mysterians?
So far as I know, there isn't such a book, but if anyone knows of one, please let me know. (I sense that some of Alan Lightman's work may be relevant.)
“ We may be in the Universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the
meaning of it all.”
― William James
I think I’m a Mysterian. While researching for an article about different views of God, I stumbled across this quote by Einstein and resonated powerfully with it:
“The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
Thanks for that quotation. I am adding Einstein to my Roster of Mysterians.
You’re welcome! Isn’t it a beautiful quote?
Full disclosure. I was the lead singer/drummer in a much sought-after band in the Bay Area in the early-mid sixties. The Chosen 5. Ugh. Trivia--? and the Mysterians was actually Sam the Sham and the Pharohs of "Wolly Bully" fame. One and the same. Last bit. Peter Beer and his wife Andrea have a new one. At 78, I'm a grandad. I thought one had to be old to be a grandad.
Know to know no more.
I love the stance of epistemological humility: that we, and our animal kin all have intellects bounded in one way or another.
Other names for mysterianism include 'cognitive closure', 'anti-constructive naturalism,' 'new mysterianism' and even 'transcendental naturalism' as McGinn himself calls it. Apparently, he uses this term because it keeps open the door to non-human intelligences having better luck than us.
It's a little hard not to think of Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), in this context, but, hey, my intelligence is bounded 😉
I complained to Claude about the term 'mysterianism' as it seems both squishy and to invoke something unnecessarily supernatural.
Claude replied thus:
The invocation of "mystery" is strategic. It's not mysticism in a supernatural sense, but a rigorous philosophical argument that:
• Some problems are not just currently unsolved, but unsolvable.
• Our cognitive limitations are fundamental, not temporary
• There are qualitative boundaries to human understanding
This rings so true. When reading some very smart philosophical writings on the origins of our universe, such people seem come to the most baffling conclusions, usually about immensely powerful beings. When I point out that we simply don't know enough, and if the Mysterians are correct may never know enough, about the origins of our universe to make any conclusions, they reject this idea: we have our logic and our maths, why shouldn't we extend those to things like the origins of the universe!
The last paragraph is a stunner. Of course.
Luther may have had his 95 Theses; the Mysterians had their 96 tears. Great to read you once again Nick.
Thanks, Henry. Never realized you were into 60s garage bands.
Interesting as always and I think it touches several of the ideas of the authors I’ve recently have been reading! Do you have any recommendation book-wise for an introduction to the mysterians?
So far as I know, there isn't such a book, but if anyone knows of one, please let me know. (I sense that some of Alan Lightman's work may be relevant.)