Science vs. Religion: (Chapter One) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 13, 2011, 23:25 (5031 days ago) @ xeno6696

I have only just begun, but right away I wanted to clarify something. On pg 15, where you reference Godel's theorem, I need to correct what it seems Paul Davies was suggesting. Of course I'm correcting him once-removed.-The line is thus: "Godel's Theorem (1931) is proof that not evetything can be explained: he conclusively demonstrated "that mathematical statements existed for which no systematic procedure could determine whether they are true or false." -I don't know Davies, but his generalization here is wrong--and dangerously so. -Godel's incompleteness theorems (there are two, the second makes the first stronger) states that for every set of theorems obtained from an axiomatic system using the natural numbers there will be one theorem that is true, but it will not be derivable from any theorem in the set. -In his own words: "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent."-In plain terms, no formal axiomatic theory can be both consistent and complete.-Your criticism here applies extremely well to particle physics (I use this criticism myself) but breaks down when you begin to discuss consciousness at the end of the section. -And my response to Chet Raymo is: "Already done 2500 years ago by Buddha." Minus of course, science being the center. -Shermer's point is closer to my own, though I realize that my previous atheism was in some cases a response to the social pressure of being raised in the midwest. "Better to be a prince of hell, than a servant in heaven." However my "fall from grace" was more to do with George Carlin and how he openly exposed religious hypocrisy that initiated the change. (The power of comedy...)-More as I explore...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"