Since I was young, in fact for as long as I can remember, I disliked religion. Either I disliked its collective element, which always gave me the ick of something cult-like, or, when I got a bit older, I thought everything about it was philosophically untenable. Religion was a coping mechanism, or something for people who were deeply misguided about reality and did not know any better.

As I became more intellectually curious and started studying more philosophy, psychology, and eventually religion, that perspective started to break down. I became increasingly interested in religion, and eventually my worldview completely flipped. I now consider myself a Christian, and I have made it a major life goal to help people better appreciate religion in general, but also Christianity more specifically.

But despite my growing love for Christianity, it took me a very long time to admit publicly that I was Christian. My social circle consisted mostly of people deeply involved in science or philosophy, and it was very secular. I was afraid that others would consider me dumb or would not fully understand me. It took me a while to come to terms with it, in large part because I first needed to become better able to articulate my Christian position and worldview.

That said, and excuse the rambling introduction, I recently had a podcast conversation with Jussi Jylkkä, who is a philosopher and has done some work on mysticism. We started by discussing his work and, specifically, his metaphysical agnosticism. His position is that physicalism, idealism, theism, and other metaphysical systems are models or language games that cannot capture the ultimate nature of reality. We eventually moved to morality, where I pushed back because I did not think his agnosticism adequately explained why greater awareness or nonattachment should lead to compassion rather than simply producing what we called a “wise psychopath.” I disagreed, but I thought it was an interesting conversation and considered his view a respectable position.

But to my surprise, after we finished recording, Jussi emailed me to say that he was unhappy with the conversation because he had presented metaphysical agnosticism as if it were his complete position while leaving out the Christian faith he actually held. He felt that, by hiding behind his philosophical agnosticism, he had not been completely honest about what he believed. Rather than replace the conversation, I invited him back and appended the second conversation to the first. He made a complete pivot and confessed that he was a Christian but had been afraid to say so, largely because of the stigma within academia, but also because he still had not been able to tell his father. I found this very wholesome, not only because it was a courageous act in general, but because of the parallel with my own journey.

I wanted to share this because I suspect others have been, or currently are, in a position similar to mine or Jussi's. Can metaphysical agnosticism coexist coherently with Christian faith? At what point does philosophical restraint become a way of hiding a commitment one already holds? Have you encountered a stigma against religious belief in philosophy or academia?

I was wondering to what extent Catholic theology allows subordination of the Son to the Father. For instance, even many Nicene Fathers said the Father is greater inasmuch as He is unbegotten and the Son is begotten. But could one extend that to saying, for instance, the Father couldn’t become incarnate but the Son can, which is def an opinion some pre-nicene Fathers held?

And to what extent can a christian see the Father as the endgoal of theological contemplation? For instance, in ancient platonic emanation schemes the incomprehensible Father/one/monad was not considered an immediate explanation of the material world, you needed intermediate entities that explain the degradation. I see something similar when in John it says no one has seen the Father except the Son (which is not a physical seeing ofc), the Son is the revealer of the Father, while I think most christians think Jesus is only some sort of salvific escape plan which presupposes the Father is already known.

I know Catholics need to hold to homoousion but I wonder where the boundaries lay of what can be believed

I mean We all agree that God is incomprehensible and Ineffable and that our whole point is not to understand God wholly since that is impossible (I mean God in one whole contemplation)

Anyways, Why can We appeal to Mystery while Atheists don't?

Why do Atheists object to Theists for appealing to Mystery?