Borges: I do think that it’s safer not to call it God. If we call it God, then we are thinking of an individual and that individual is mysteriously three, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, which to me is quite inconceivable. On the other hand, if we employ other words, perhaps less precise or vivid ones, then we could approach the truth, if an approach to truth is possible. Or it could be something that we ignore.
But just because something is inconceivable does not mean it is untrue. One would expect an infinite Someone to be inconceivable by a finite someone. On the other hand, there is much to be said for the idea that "God means something in us that strives for good." That may very well be how God presents himself to us. And yes, God is not an individual. He is a singularity, the singularity.
Perhaps Borges would have been better served if he reduced his analysis to one word (by following the lead of William James): ineffable. That says it all.
ReplyDelete