Religous debates and questions [2]

Lancebloke wrote: I like to think (and I am sure it would be disputed) that I am a very logical, analytical person. To me, there is no need to have faith in something like a god or an afterlife etc. My logical(?) brain says there is no reason for a god to be and there is no argument I have ever heard that disputes that.

That's can be a totally consistent world view Lance. And if it answers all the questions you wonder about, why would there be any need to look further?

I was trained as a theoretical mathematician, so although I like to think i have a logical mind as well, I can't help but look deeper than that.

Have you ever met Gödel's incompleteness theorem? It basically says that even in a system as simple as the integers, you can't be both internally consistent and know everything. Truth will always slip through the cracks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.

It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God, but it does prove the limitations of logic.

I dont think you have to switch off the logical bit of your brain to have faith. I dont think they are mutually exclusive. I think faith comes from a different part of the brain and is connected to the need humans have for the spiritual, whatever that is. I think some people are hardwired to experience faith more easily than others like some people are naturals at music or maths or some people can smell colours and other strange phenomena.

David - Well... that is a theory. As with most theories, there will come a time where it either becomes fact... or our understanding increases and it is overtaken with new theories/facts. I think that, if the human race survives, we will eventually have an understanding of it all. Might take another million years, but we will. I think everything is explainable and fits within a system of some kind. Maybe the key will be when we eventually understand all components of the system, that will be the only time we actually understand it all.

It's actually not a theory, Lance. It's a formal mathematical theorem, like the Pythagorean Theorem, which was first proved in 1931. Since then it's been expanded to many other things, and proved over and over again.  

One way to say it  is this:
If everything is either True or False, then there is a formula that can construct an infinite number of contradictions. Therefore either 1) there are things that are neither true nor false, or 2)there are things that are both true and false at the same time.  

It's a fairly straightforward proof as mathematics goes, but it stood all of mathematical logic on its head in the mid-20th century, and it's never quite recovered.  Logic is fuzzy around the edges by its very nature.

It has been proven over and over within known limits. Like you said, it turned logic on its head at one point. Logic that, until then, had been proven over and over again.

These things tend to happen... not to say it wont turn out to be eventually the same... but at some point, someone may discover something that turns that on it's head.

We're not quite on the same page here, Lance, but I learned my lesson trying to explain to Mrs Figg the mathematical equivalence of a coffee cup and a doughnut.  You have faith in Logic, and there's nothing wrong with that. I do to. We should probably leave it at that.

I think we are in terms if what you are saying. I understand the principle but not that that theorem will ultimately prove to be correct. It is correct in so far as we understand things right now.

Example is the recent detection of a supernova. It has confused lots of people because its power does not fit in with models of how it is expected to based on current mathematical thinking. It sits outside of all that. That means either everything they believed in the first place is wrong or it still isnt fully understood and the current maths actually sits as part of a larger puzzle.

Does that make sense? Something may come along which either shows that the theorem you mention is flawed or that it only applies to a certain point. The result may be an overhaul of maths from a basic level... like base 8 or 10 or whatever.

I guess what I am saying is logic is only fuzzy when you dont know the answer to everything. I imagine in 300 years, the cutting edge experimental stuff will either be gone or will be basic logic.

David H wrote:We're not quite on the same page here, Lance, but I learned my lesson trying to explain to Mrs Figg the mathematical equivalence of a coffee cup and a doughnut.  You have faith in Logic, and there's nothing wrong with that. I do to. We should probably leave it at that.

 thats easy, take one coffee cup and one doughnut, and you have two reasons to make me happy, its Mathematical equivalence.  

I guess what I am saying is logic is only fuzzy when you dont know the answer to everything. I imagine in 300 years, the cutting edge experimental stuff will either be gone or will be basic logic. - Lance

Well given we dont what over 90% is (or where it is for that matter) one would expect a large degree of fuzziness about everything we know.

Reminds me of the old joke about the boy who is born and lives till old in a closed, roofed compound- all he can see of the world is out of a knot-hole in the fence- every day of his adult life he looks through it first thing in the morning, and every day he sees the horns, then head and eyes, then the side and eventually the tail of a cow going by- after witnessing this all his life he suddenly as a epiphany and declares- "I've got it- the horns call the tail into being".

The moral of the story being be aware of conclusions drawn from only a small slice of a complete picture.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Well given we dont what over 90% is (or where it is for that matter) one would expect a large degree of fuzziness about everything we know.

I don't think we know even a small fraction of 1%.  A very, very small fraction.

An old professor for whom I have infinite respect once explained higher education to me like this:
"When a young student graduates from high school, he thinks he knows everything.
"When he learns that he doesn't know everything, we give him a Bachelor's degree.
"When he realizes he doesn't know anything, we give him a Masters degree.
"When he finally realizes he doesn't know anything, and neither does anybody else, he's earned the Doctorate."

It's so true David. And that is kinda what I meant. One day the next 1% that we don't have any idea about now will be standard basic stuff and I would think at least some of the 'rock solid' theories (or maybe even facts) of today would be laughed at.

I think the poo pooers and nay sayers serve an irritating but essential service, even if it means we believed the Earth was flat than longer than was necessary, we need checks and balances, otherwise we would just accept the new theories without too much soul searching, and nothing would really progress.

Or we might have colonised the universe and have evolved to a state of pure energy and eternal happiness and enlightenment....

There is a religious theory called dualism which argues that the reality is split in two parts. The physical world around us and the spiritual world outside it. The physical world is seen as a prison from which the spiritual part of a human longs to escape.

One dualist theory suggested that God of the Bible as the creator of the physical world is evil. Trapping man in the prison of his creation. Because of this some of these people saw the devil, because his rebellion against God, as a way to escape Gods prison of creation. Though they would see God as the evil character and not call his opposer the Devil, I suppose.

A lot of the persecution of the christians with gnostic views, like the cathars, where because of those sorts of beliefs.

Religion is a strange animal.

Lancebloke wrote:Or we might have colonised the universe and have evolved to a state of pure energy and eternal happiness and enlightenment....

yeah like that would have happened.   humans are way too crap for eternal happiness.

Ok... the other bits then.

ok

I kinda like the Dualism idea, Homo sapiens have not the mental capacity to establish ongoing happiness, its a novelty they cannot sustain for longer than...........

Have you tried buckie?  

Yes, Petty, when I was a wee lad I was continuously sloshed, pissed as a fart. Now, my intention is to live to the 2nd half century so its chocolate all the way baby ! Ive even knocked roll-ups on the head ! fooking hard tho ! Ive melted 3 Biro's trying to light them,  

yeah me too, apart from the biros. spent most of my 20s on sex drugs and rock n roll. I blame the nunnery.   now I am just boring teetotaler, Now I get dizzy if I drink an espresso too quick.

Wow ! you can get sex,drugs,rock & roll in a Nunnery ?! Im going there! were's the nearest one !  

azriel wrote:I kinda like the Dualism idea

It is very interesting, I agree, Azriel.

And if you're interested I'd tell you to read up on the history of the Cathars. Though it is very sad part of history. It will tell you a lot about the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and their treatment of what they saw as heretics.

Thankyou Blue, I try & have an open mind on all sorts of things, & I enjoy learning. IL certainly do some investigating  

Mrs Figg wrote:I dont think you have to switch off the logical bit of your brain to have faith. I dont think they are mutually exclusive. I think faith comes from a different part of the brain and is connected to the need humans have for the spiritual, whatever that is. I think some people are hardwired to experience faith more easily than others like some people are naturals at music or maths or some people can smell colours and other strange phenomena.

I'm completely with you on this and other similar statements you've made, Figgs.

My mom packaged us off to church youth groups from a young age, and I was believer until about age 13. Then I was laying on the sofa watching dust motes dance in a sunbeam, and the sudden realization struck me that Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with the way those dust motes danced. It felt simultaneously as if the floor had dropped away but the sky had opened up. Religion felt like it limited understanding to me, so I rejected it; yet another person would have conflated spiritual power with power over the physical world and achieved a union rather than a separation.

Back as a physics graduate student I and this other physics grad student got a room-mate who believed in astrology. When questioned he said the planets were so massive they must have a gravitational effect on the brain. I pooh-poohed it, saying as physicists we understood gravity well enough that we couldn't attribute mystical effects to it. My friend said flatly "we only think we understand gravity. It's a pompous statement." It was a valuable lesson to me, and since then I haven't felt the need to criticize religious/mystical beliefs unless they clearly contradict science or my sense of ethics.

Many scientists manage to have religion without seeing a conflict. It doesn't work for me, I prefer to leave my gaps in understanding to be open so I can reason more clearly. But at some point when I don't feel the need to reason any more I may let myself enjoy the comforts of faith. There's a definite attraction. I think atheists enjoy things like Lord of the Rings which have a spiritual sense that can be enjoyed vicariously - it's something we all wish was there, even if we can't bring ourselves to believe it logically.