The Epistemic Paradox of Non‐Contrastive Transcendence

Abstract This essay explores the epistemic paradox suggested by non‐contrastive transcendence: though the doctrine is ultimately grounded in revelation, it appears to rule out the possibility of revelation by undermining the validity of causal inferences about God. The suggested solution is that the inferences which ground the narration of God in experience need not be causal, but are analogous to meaning‐making inferences used to interpret literature and other forms of art.