Is the existence of the universe a problem or a mystery?

I am interested in the philosophy of religion: what happens when we try to think clearly about the various phenomena in the world that we call religions. But even before we begin to do philosophy of religion, we need to ask whether the project itself is viable.

If religions point to invisible realities, then maybe these realities are completely beyond the capacity of our minds? Or maybe there are no such realities in the first place? Maybe science can and does answer all the questions that we ask about our world? After all, we used to think that gravity was a mystery, but now we see it as a problem, even if we do not yet have a complete solution. Religious people say that the universe is a mystery, however. Who is right?

---

Dr Philip Wilson teaches philosophy at the University of East Anglia. He is currently writing a book on transcendence. He is also interested in translation and philosophy and has published Translation after Wittgenstein and has edited The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy (with Piers Rawling). His translation of Simone Weil's play Venice Saved (with Silvia Panizza) has just been published.

Oh and also here's a fun meme to sum up my opinion

I think we may be able to uncover the mystery of the existence of our universe, who knows?

This very intellectual thread will interest you good sir.

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5964174

Oh and also here's a fun meme to sum up my opinion

Not all religious people think that it is a problem or a mystery inherently. Getting too bound up in anxieties about it can be a problem, but otherwise its existence can be taken as a simple brute fact. It being a problem or a mystery only carries weight if you particularly care about explaining it, which is summed up in the Buddha's attitude toward this sort of question in the Nikāyas.

I recently re-read Richard Gaskin's stuff on linguistic idealism. Not sure if I fully agree with it given my predilection to mysticism and all that but it is a compelling account of how no aspect of reality can be beyond comprehension (more accurately beyond linguistic designation) and still be thought of as 'reality'. The knock-on effect would be that such 'invisible', ultimately indescribable 'realities' are not 'realities' at all and thus do not exist.

Well, I think it depends a bit on perspective/individual or social value judgments on which to pursue as a matter of priority, as to what knowledge is considered a "mystery" or "problem".

No one is right because no one can prove eachother wrong or prove their theories correct.

It'll be an argument we will always have until the end of humanity as our technology and way of thinking will never be enough to understand the true extent of reality.

Not all religious people think that it is a problem or a mystery inherently. Getting too bound up in anxieties about it can be a problem, but otherwise its existence can be taken as a simple brute fact. It being a problem or a mystery only carries weight if you particularly care about explaining it, which is summed up in the Buddha's attitude toward this sort of question in the Nikāyas.

I recently re-read Richard Gaskin's stuff on linguistic idealism. Not sure if I fully agree with it given my predilection to mysticism and all that but it is a compelling account of how no aspect of reality can be beyond comprehension (more accurately beyond linguistic designation) and still be thought of as 'reality'. The knock-on effect would be that such 'invisible', ultimately indescribable 'realities' are not 'realities' at all and thus do not exist.

Excellent post with a lot of interesting questions!

I think that if one wishes to argue that their belief system is based on faith because the concepts underlying those beliefs are inherently beyond human comprehension then there is no scope for rational discourse on the viability of those beliefs.

However, the discourse between thinkers like Plantinga, WLC and Oppy, Mackie etc shows that the philosophy of religion can agree to a set of shared logical axioms upon which certain beliefs can be challenged and assessed. We see this in the battle over the logical problem of evil, which has now become the evidential problem of evil.