Colin McGinn - Mysterianism and the Mind of God

Respondent: Roger Scruton

Which aspects of God’s mind are mysterious and which are not? Do the mysteries of God’s mind parallel the mysteries of the human mind? The mystery of the mind-body connection will not apply to God’s mind, since God has no material body-- though the consciousness of God itself might pose mysteries in its own right, such as the mystery of intentionality. But the mystery of free will can be expected to apply equally to God, as it does to humans. How God can have free will in a world either deterministic or indeterministic is just as problematic as the analogous problem for human freedom. On the other hand, all is not mysterious, either for humans or for God, since some mental faculties do admit of understanding: the language faculty, logical reasoning, geometrical competence, and moral and social cognition. God presumably possesses each of these faculties, and so the theories that apply to humans will carry over to God, mutatis mutandis. For instance, God’s language faculty will involve a combinatorial system built from a finite base and extending to infinity.

As to the problem of divine intervention in the natural world, I see no metaphysical reason why this should be more difficult to understand than the intervention of the human will in the natural world (which is not to say that this problem is easy). In both cases we are confronted with a physical world governed by natural laws that appear to proceed without volitional causation—how then can volitional acts, human or divine, affect what happens in the natural world?

COLIN MCGINN’s interests include philosophy of mind, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, ethics, philosophy of physics, and the philosophy of literature and film. He has taught at Rutgers University, Oxford University and University College London, among other places. He has published over twenty books, ranging from consciousness to evil, Shakespeare to sport, film to logic, Wittgenstein to imagination. He has written extensively for the general reading public, as well as publishing two novels. He lives in Miami, where he paddles and plays tennis.

[HugoLeonardoRufiner]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

‍ Colin McGinn, a philosopher with a wide range of interests, is giving a talk about "Mysterianism and the Mind of God".
McGinn is known for embracing labels that others might use as insults, turning them into positive identities.
Scruton is a visiting professor at the University of St Andrews and Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
✍️ Scruton is a prolific writer with a wide range of interests, including the Church of England, beauty, pessimism, and green philosophy.
Theology studies God, so why can't psychology explore the divine mind if God has plans and intentions?
️‍♀️ We can make inferences about God's mind based on the evidence He leaves behind.
Even if God is fictional, we can study the psychology behind his character based on religious traditions.
Our knowledge of anything, including God's mind, is never perfect.
This means God's thoughts wouldn't have hidden meanings or ambiguities.
God's thoughts likely follow the same logical form as described in standard predicate logic.
His specific thoughts, like "the queen is good, " would have a structure based on existing theories of descriptions.
God's mastery of language suggests a complex psychology behind it, similar to human language.
Even if God doesn't speak like us, his language of thought likely has structure and rules.
This "divine language" would be similar to human language at an abstract level: rule-based and infinitely generative.
God likely has consciousness, even if it's different from what we experience (like bats).
God is probably self-conscious, with a unified sense of self, similar to how humans are.
So, unlike us, God's consciousness wouldn't be a mystery arising from physical processes.
God also has a will, makes decisions, and reasons, but the issue of free will applies to him too.
God likely forms intentions by combining his beliefs and desires.
He might even have varying degrees of desire, just like us.
Unlike humans, God probably doesn't have an unconscious mind or dreams.
This is opposite to empiricism, which says knowledge comes from senses.
The video argues that God likely doesn't have a personality in the human sense.
Analogy: some animals have minds but no personalities (sheep, snakes, fish).
Despite desires different from the devil, God probably lacks a "sparkling" or "introverted" personality.
The video will now discuss the relationship between God and the world, assuming both exist.
This view also makes God seem separate from the world, which might not be ideal theologically. 🪐‍♂️
The video will next explore another view: God and the world somehow coincide.
Even if God emerged, how would he interact with the world? This problem isn't solved. 🪐❓
There are external objects, but they are ideas in God's mind, not physical things.
The video acknowledges these are complex philosophical ideas and none are without difficulties.
The difficulty of uniting God and the world isn't a reason to deny God's existence, any more than mind-body problems deny minds. ‍♂️‍♂️
Some might use these difficulties to argue God or the world don't exist, but the video argues for a more moderate position. ⚖️
The video suggests similar logic applies to the mind-body problem - complex problems don't automatically deny existence. ⚖️
This problem is similar to the mind-body problem and challenges the idea of radical dualism. ↔️
Another difficulty is reconciling God's intervention with deterministic laws of nature. ⚖️
If everything is predetermined by laws, how can God or humans truly affect the world? ‍♂️
The video compares the problem of God intervening in the world to humans making free will decisions. ⚖️
If our decisions are just physical brain activity, free will seems like an illusion.
Similarly, some say God's will could be physical (like magnetism), but that seems too simplistic for God. ✨
The video seeks a solution that avoids these problems, but admits none are perfect so far. ⚖️
The key is finding a way to fit free will/God's will into a deterministic or indeterministic physical world. 🪐
The video argues the problem of God intervening in the world is a general problem about causation, not unique to God. 🪐
Many people aren't worried about God acting in a world without broken physical laws. 🪐
The video uses suspending gravity as an example of a miracle (violating a natural law). ✨
The speaker doubts God ever intervenes in this way, and argues there's no evidence for it.
The video finds the idea of God following natural laws while intervening a genuine problem. ⚖️✨
Again, this problem applies beyond just God - it applies to free will as well. ⚖️➡️
A radical separation of God and the world (dualism) makes this problem worse. ‍♀️✨
In this view, God would be inseparable from the universe but not identical to it, avoiding both extremes. ✨🪐
Scruton finds this view challenging due to existing problems with free will.
He refers to Harry Frankfurt's definition of free will based on desires and self-control, not indeterminacy.
Scruton says an intentional action is one where you can ask "why?" and expect a justification, not just a cause. ❓
Scruton acknowledges the difficulty of describing God - whether God is like us or completely unique. ⚖️
He mentions Islamic ideas of God's oneness and unknowability. ☪️
The video mentions Colin McGinn's mysterianism - the idea that the mind-body problem is beyond our understanding.
Scruton suggests this mysterianism might apply to God's relation to the world as well. ✨🪐
Even if we can't understand how mind and body relate, Scruton argues we can still experience it.
The speaker argues this might be a special case and most thinking involves propositions. ‍♂️
The questioner points out the verb "think" can sometimes have non-propositional uses (e.g. "I think it's raining"). ☔
The audience asks if the speaker's view of God is too focused on the left brain (logical, analytical) and neglects the right brain (creative, emotional).
The speaker says God acting implies some way of influencing things, even without a physical body. ✨
Another audience member brings up Aquinas' view of the Trinity and the "word" in God (from John's Gospel). ✝️
The speaker acknowledges debate about how we know things about God's mind - revelation, tradition, or maybe we can't know anything. ❓
The speaker says if God uses language, it likely has a structure similar to human language (combinatorial, discrete infinity).
Another audience member brings up the idea of God having intuitive knowledge (directly knowing truths). ✨
This type of knowledge would be different from propositional knowledge (knowledge based on reasoning).
The speaker distinguishes between personality traits (like love) and having a full personality (psychological traits).
The speaker says some find the God of the Old Testament has a "serious personality disorder" due to wrathful actions.
A new audience member asks about McGinn's mysterianism view and mind-body dualism. ❓
McGinn clarifies his view is pluralism, where mind and body are distinct properties that can't be reduced to each other.
They explain "post-atheist" similar to how most people are "post-polytheist" - it's not a belief they actively consider anymore. ‍♀️
A new question is posed: if something is mysterious (like the mind-body problem), does that mean we should stop asking questions about it?
The speaker implies that the mind-body problem might also be solved someday through scientific progress.
McGinn continues his explanation of mysterianism using the example of biological progress.
He argues that consciousness might not be objectively complex because even simple creatures have some level of it.
The speaker highlights the mismatch between what's difficult for us to understand (epistemological) and what's objectively complex (ontological). ≠❓
The video cuts off before McGinn can respond to another audience member. ✋
Scruton argues the Bible uses metaphorical language to talk about God because God is difficult to understand directly.
Scruton argues against limiting God's thinking to human-like discursive thought.
He suggests a more Platonic view of God's knowledge, where all ideas are present at once (timeless). ♾️
Scruton mentions another point: God's knowledge wouldn't involve the limitations of human thinking
Scruton agrees with the previous speaker that the Bible uses metaphorical language to describe God's thinking.
He mentions Spinoza's view of ultimate truth existing in how God conceives of things. ✨
Scruton suggests that appreciating art (like Beethoven's quartets) is a model for how God understands us directly.
He argues that the aesthetic experience is a way of knowing without needing language.
The audience member quotes a philosopher saying they've reached the limits of what they can understand. ‍♂️
The moderator thanks the speakers and ends the discussion.

Made with HARPA AI

[rodgerwiese]

For me, this presentation would have been a lot more meaningful and enjoyable if Professor McGinn was a speaker and not just a reader. Without proper short pauses and other tools accomplished speakers use I found that I had to listen to this more than once and still don't believe I got all I should out of this presentation...


Professor McGinn is a very accomplished person and I did find his talk very interesting other than finding it hard to absorb all that he thought and spoke.


Maybe I'll find his writings online and read them for myself again.

[MojoMan]

In fact he references the claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient- but God seemingly communicates to us in very human and pedestrian ways…

[mohammedhanif]

roger scruton's response @ 44:30

q&a @ 52:00

[johntobin]

i just feel that so many of Professor McGinn's assumptions about the mind of God are anthropomorphic in nature, and that he's not grasping the concept of the infinite nature of God. It's anything but clear, what we can comfortably assume about Her nature. This talks just seems to me almost to trivialize the God concept. How does he know that many or even any of the traits he attributes to, or assumes about God, are valid...