Dale Tuggy vs. James Anderson on mystery

Dale Tuggy at trinities has just reviewed Anderson’s work, mentioned in my posts on the Trinity.

His one significant argument against Anderson is that the incomprehensibility of God does not make it more likely than not that we will encounter apparent contradictions in our view of God, so that that contradictions are still a defeater for a doctrine.

My thought: if the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility makes it possible that there would be something about God apparently contradictory, then Andersons’ full argument (which includes the proviso that there’s nothing about incomprehensibility which requires that any paritcular doctrine be apparently contradictory) still would seem to stand. If the incomprehensibility of God makes it possible that an apparent contradiction would arise, we can’t rule out an apparently contradictory doctrine just because it is such. It just means that we must actually show that the currently available non-contradictory explanations of the apparent contradictions are somehow not orthodox or biblical (i.e., that they contradict something else God has revealed). With that empirical evidence, along with our knowledge about the incomprehensibility of God, it seems to me that believing in apparent contradictions is reasonable.

This means that we would only have probablistic reasons to believe in apparently contradictory doctrines, but I don’t see this as a problem for Anderson’s thesis, nor for ordinary human life.