God is „the absolute-relative, this-side-other-side, transcendent-immanent, all-embracing-all-pervading most real reality in the heart of things, in man, in human history, in the world,“ writes Hans Küng in his book „Existiert Gott?“. However, I did not read this sentence in his book, but in an article about so-called „immunization strategies“. There it was given as an example of such a strategy. „Immunization strategy“ is a scientific-philosophical term used to refer to statements which, in the view of science and philosophy, are intentionally formulated in such a vague, general and indeterminate way that they evade any critical examination and refutability.
The philosopher of religion and law Norbert Hörster criticizes this Küngian definition of God as a self-defined empty formula and responds to it with a palpable sauciness:
„So hazy, many-saying, and thus meaningless, of course, the word ‚God‘ can be understood.“
After reading this article, I again became painfully aware that philosophy and science, as instruments of the mind, really cannot succeed in gaining knowledge about the soul.
The definition of God formulated by Mr. Küng postulates unity. This perception of unity is based on the perception of his soul. It is based on the perception of eternity and infinity. On the perception of an absence of separation. And exactly these are the points, where science and philosophy fail with their material methods: They insinuate Mr. Küng a „strategy“ with which he „wants to secure“ his „theory“ „against“ „attacks“ from „outside“. So you are imputing to Mr. Küng that his ego with all the mind-methods at his disposal of attack and defense, of tricks and counter-tricks, of separation and unification with the goal to win a fight – namely to be right by deliberately vague formulations – was involved in the formulation of his definition of God. They do not understand that it is not the tactics of a strategy that makes them fail to apply their levers of separation (because nothing else is the desire for critical debate: to fight, to be right, to slander, to insist,… to negate. Destroy…), but that it is the origin of Mr. Küng’s statement that cannot give them a hand with their divisive methods. Where there is unity, nothing can be separated. There also nothing can be proved and who does not perceive with his soul, he cannot experience it. So it is understandable that the mind refers to itself again and again and so never gets over it to feel itself in such cases in warlike – strategic – and conscious intention booted out by another mind.
„Emptiness formula“ is a good term. For the soul emptiness is everything, because there everything is one. For the ego it is a swear word, because emptiness cannot be separated and it frightens it so horribly by its size. The ego – caught in its hostile reflex – recognizes in statements about unity only a trick. The attempt of defense, of dominance. The disarming and the helplessness. Powerlessness. Inability to act by making separation impossible. The own death. It is not possible for him to accept the existence of unity as a concept of reality that is not accessible to him, but instead feels challenged and fought against.
To respond once again to Mr. Hörster’s critical sentence: „meaningful“ is not „meaningless„. many-saying definitely takes sides and separates, even if it perhaps unites very much – but just not everything – on itself. „All-saying“ meets the definition of Mr. Küng better and that is indeed „non-saying“ because it unites everything. From the point of view of the soul, in view of the fact that speaking is accomplished by the mind, an evaluation as „non-saying“ is a positive predicate. Behind the words, behind the thoughts, so to speak….