Here's something off the beaten path, but it's related to some of the discussions in the combox recently.
Dear xxxxx,
You're welcome. I always enjoy interacting with you on theological and philosophical matters of importance. I could quibble with you about how we should view the will, the intellect or Catholicism's potential consistency and uniformity. However, I'll save the dissent which I may express another time. Instead, I briefly wanted to make a comment regarding Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Looking back at Alister McGrath (one of the handouts I mailed to you), he writes that one implication of Godel's theorem is that it demonstrates "the inability of reason to prove its own competency" (Why God Won't Go Away, page 100).
So McGrath (as I understand him) is not saying that "all statements" [mathematical or otherwise] cannot be proven . . ." But what I take him to be arguing is that the incompleteness theorem suggests reason is limited: it cannot make definitive pronouncements respecting its own competency. There are some things we might know are true, but they are not capable of being demonstrated through the use of reason. I believe that Paul Davies is making a similar point about Godel's theorem. See the other pages I sent to you.
I'll be in contact with you at a later time.
page 100?
ReplyDeleteNotes.
Hi Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to page 100 of Alister McGrath's book, Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2010).
The book is no longer in my possession and most of my correspondence with my interlocutor took place via usps rather than by means of email. But the main point of our brief discourse was how one should understand Godel's incompleteness theorem. What does it tell us regarding axioms?
My correspondent wrote: "In regards to Godel's incompleteness theorem, my understanding is that any system of mathematical formalism contains internally consistent statements which cannot be proven--not that all statement cannot be proven. Thus math texts are full of theorems logically derived from initial axiomatic assumptions and science actually discovers truths about this world which it demonstrates by real technological success."
My friend and I have quibbled over the exact application of Godel's theorem and what exactly we're supposed to learn from it. I primarily referenced the conversation because of our discussion concerning axioms.
Thanks Edgar,
ReplyDeleteI was trying to find you reference in a UK paperback edition & pg 100 is the beginning of the index. The must be formatted differently.
You're welcome, Duncan. I did not think about the possible dfiference that might exist between an American and UK edition. It's funny that the page difference might be that great.
ReplyDeleteIf you had access to an electronic edition, maybe you could use Godel or incompleteness as a search term.
All the best,
Edgar
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteFound this interesting documentary:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxeMpdsHkn8
Thinking on....
ReplyDeleteWhen I mentioned observation, I was not really referring to science in the reductionist sense but something more basic.
"OBSERVING WITH AN OPEN MIND
As Eastern philosophers will tell you, one can arrive at major truths simply by observing. I'm reminded of something that Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, wrote some years ago...and I'm paraphrasing now. She said--there's a tendency among people in her field to be too quick to relate what they see to what they already know. But to really make the creative breakthroughs, you can't work this way. You need to observe with a blank mind. Without expectations.
You need to sit in the native village and simply observe...and watch...and observe. At some point you notice that these behaviors over here have something to do with those behaviors over there. Hmmm. What is that relationship? I'm not sure. I think I'll watch some more. And so you watch some more. Now, it may be that you are watching the expected mores and rituals. But maybe not. Maybe it's something completely new. That's the kind of observing that can lead to a new paradigm."
http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster/Infostuttering/Paradigmparalysis.html
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to be difficult, I promise you. :) I try to teach world religion in a "fair and balanced manner." Remember the Mankind's Search for God book? I will concede that there are elements of eastern thought which seem to contain a grain of truth. However, from the perspective of scripture (not just western thought), the East seems to have many weaknesses in its collective armor. A fascination with the East swept America in the 60s and 70s. People were touting eastern philosophy as some type of solution to world problems. Were their hopes fulfilled or was their trust misplaced? Are many aspects of eastern philosophy riddled with insuperable difficulties? Nothing wrong with observing as Jesus himself said in the SOM. Yet I wonder how much has been truly accomplished by Hindu, Confucian, Buddhist or Daoist thinkers?
Postmodern thinkers now say that the famed "tabula rasa" of John Locke is a myth: none of us approach texts or experience from the perspective of nowhere. As the saying goes, "There are no unfiltered facts." And yet, I'm not arguing for a relativistic approach to morals nor do I promote a thoroughgoing skepticism where epistemology is concerned: I'm a moral absolutist and my preferred epistemology is objectivistic externalism (well sorta).
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I am suggesting. But the quote above is still applicable.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study
History is an observation study, if we pay attention to the functional and the disfunctional.
More modern eastern thinking has thought without definite action. Older Hebraic thinking is all about action but it is still eastern hence the perfect and imperfect tenses. Observation and then wise action. Or as Yoda put it "there is no try - do, or do not. 😀
Those other belief systems are fatalistic. Along with Inshallah. These all tend to stop definate positive action. 1 John 4:8, John 4:24.
Fact are filtered by results. Inconvenient results are usually ignored or deemed anomalous. See phlogiston theory. This kind of thinking is still normal today in many respects.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is no such thing as a blank slate. Are you referring to Pinker?
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDelete1) The quote about "no unfiltered facts" is also meant to convey the thought that all facts are value-laden or cognized through the template of preexisting concepts. So there is no perfect objectivity--no Archimedean (epistemological) starting point.
So while I agree that facts are also filtered by results, the point of the quote is that perfect objectivism (epistemologically speaking) is a myth.
2) The blank slate (tabula rasa) language particularly derives from John Locke who made those words famous; nevertheless, Pinker likewise wrote a book with that title.
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteI was referring to pinkers book arguing against the blank slate.
From Thorleif Bomans' Hebrew thought compared with Greek:-
Heading for pg200
The formal peculiarity of each kind of thinking.
Greeks seek objective truth about what is, clarity and evidence; Hebrews seek personal certainty about the laws of life, of history and of morals. Greek thinking is synthetically archetectonic, and Israelite thinking is analytically penetrating, seeking to find and isolate the point.
Duncan,
ReplyDelete1) I've read Pinker's book, but I'm just saying that it was John Locke who made the saying famous. Pinker is extrtacting that language from the British empiricist, Locke. Yet I like Pinker's book although I might take issue with much of what he writes.
2) Boman's work is good; however, James Barr leveled severe criticisms against the whole enterprise of Hebrew thinking and Greek thinking. I don't believe that Boman's publication will survive in the current atmosphere of academic biblical studies. It's now considered to be a dated work by most.
Having said all that, I still own the work and like its uncommon suggestions.
Edgar,
ReplyDeletehttp://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/21-think.html
So it looks like language does affect thought to a certain extent so I would not discard bowman's ideas completely even if his method has flaws. One cannot ignore the tense differences.
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteit's an interesting link, but like other subjects, linguists and psychologists are all over the place on this question. Here are 2 quotes from the article:
"It's like the chicken and egg question. Do we learn to think before we speak, or does language shape our thoughts? New experiments with five-month-olds favor the conclusion that thought comes first."
"There are lots of situations involving the relation between ideas and language that Hespos and Spelke did not address, so the debate is still open. Do people think before they speak or do words shape their thoughts?"
As for James Barr, we read: "the
Biblical Theology Movement, and its emphasis on the distinct Hebrew mentality, in contrast
with the Greek, has been toppled almost single-handedly by James Barr, with his critique of
how semantics had been used to justify biblical theology in The Semantics of Biblical Language."
(Quote taken from Andrea, Dalton, Saner's thesis, "YHWH, the Trinity, and the Literal Sense: Theological Interpretation of Exodus 3:13-15.") See page 19.
Vide also http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3263962?uid=3739776&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105454719133
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the links. I will have to read James Barr's book.
It is a very complicated subject. This debate cover's some of the issues:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrvfYVXakU
I referenced the article because of "thinking about objects". The concrete within thinking being native & the abstract being learned. As I said before, I see no reason to believe in a blank slate.
As an example the etymology of "left" as in left & right:-
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=left&allowed_in_frame=0
Orignially lyft just meant weak. The weaker hand, so which side to assign it to would have been arbitrary. It has in effect become a abstract term as being left handed to us means that the hand on the side our group associates it with is actually the stronger side.
I believe that this is relevant to the Hebrew, particularly how we understated YHWH (and other designations) as a label rather than a character.
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteHere's an example that is similar to Ancient Hebrew:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpWp7g7XWU
At about 58:00 - left & right.
This is concrete, like Exodus 8:9-13 use of directions. Desert region, unknown region, the sea & the region of the rising sun. Absolute coordinates.
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteI am losing track of which threads contain specific comment so please forgive me if I am placing this in the wrong place:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMNFyhuqyNQ
This is more debate on thought & language.
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteJust finished reading PB. You quote begins on pg 67.
Chapter 5 made me chukle. On the nature of science. See
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygnnu68R6iU
Where he refers to focused hypothosis & funding of reserch. This is not observation. Incidentally it is obvious from a few phrases in this book that he is leaning further toward theism due to his appreciation of the limitations of the reductionist approach.
Thanks, Duncan. I'll consider the material you posted and I've saved all the links from this thread to my personal files. But I guess this subject has been exhausted from the standpoint of Godel's theorem; it might be revisted later here.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Edgar
BTW, the page number I gave for McGrath's US edition is correct. But other versions of the work may have different pagination schemes.
ReplyDelete