Unknowable

Here's the idea. "There's no point in discussing/arguing/thinking about this further because it hasn't been decided in a long time and we can't know." It's a popular notion applied to several ideas, primarily religious in nature. I've heard it remarkably often from folks in discussions regarding predestination and the like. "Well, folks much smarter than me have argued about it for centuries, so I have no reason to think I'll figure it out."

I'm puzzled by a couple of aspects of this line of thinking. First, is it the case that if something cannot be "known" (I put quotes around it because "known" is likely hard to define), it cannot be discussed, argued, or evaluated? I ask because there is very, very little that we can actually know for certain without any possibility of being wrong or any shadow of doubt. Hey, philosophers have argued for a long time if we can even know that we exist! How much can we actually know? Most of us seem to operate quite fine on "pretty sure" without requiring an absolute "know". So what's the value of the disclaimer "There's no point ... since we can't know"?

The other thing that puzzles me is the suggestion that there is no answer. As I said, for instance, philosophers have argued for centuries about whether or not we can know that we exist. The possibilities? "Yes" or "No". That's it. Two possibilities. Yes, we can know, or no, we cannot. The suggestion seems to be that, since people have argued the topic for a long time and we can't know, there is no right answer. But, folks, we're down to only two possibilities. Surely one of them is right. So we shouldn't discuss/argue/think about it because someone is not sure yet? I just don't get it.

Let's take Predestination. The Bible uses the word. No doubt about it. Scofield, who was no Calvinist, notes in the Scofield Study Bible that while Predestination causes intellectual difficulties, discarding it won't work because it is clearly in the Bible. Now, the subject (even the definition) has been debated for a long time. Christians have not agreed on a conclusion. Some discard it. Some embrace it to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Most fall in between. Does this mean that the subject is unimportant? I don't think so, since it does play a prominent role in Scripture. Does it mean that we shouldn't discuss, argue, or think about it? That would seem equally obviously false because it's in the Bible. I would think that whatever is in God's Word should be examined. Is it true that, since it has been argued for centuries without a unilateral conclusion, there is no right answer? That is another "false". God intended something when He put it in there. We should figure out what it is.

To me, generally when I hear "There's no point in discussing it because we can't know", I'm not looking at a genuine argument. I'm looking at a smoke screen. "It's too hard. I don't want to think about it." Too often it's "Well, the things you are saying make sense, but they contradict what I believe, so I'm going to stop this before I have to change my mind." Because the argument "We can't know so we shouldn't ask" makes no sense whatsoever.