Gödel's incompleteness theorems - what are the religious implications? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?What are the philosophical implications of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem?Did Russell understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems?Relation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Karl Popper falsificationGödel's ontological proof and the incompleteness theoremAre there any work around after Godel's incompleteness theorems?What sources discuss Russell's response to Gödel's incompleteness theorems?Do Gödel's incompleteness theorems have any consequences for epistemology?Can Gödel's incompleteness theorems be applied to ethics?Poignancy because of Gödel's theorems - why?Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Implications for Science
Can a PhD from a non-TU9 German university become a professor in a TU9 university?
What is the difference between 'contrib' and 'non-free' packages repositories?
Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?
Ising model simulation
Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed, considered Gaussian?
Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?
Is it correct to say moon starry nights?
Find the majority element, which appears more than half the time
How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?
Physiological effects of huge anime eyes
Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?
Avoiding the "not like other girls" trope?
How can the PCs determine if an item is a phylactery?
Does int main() need a declaration on C++?
Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for a settlement offer?
Do I need to write [sic] when including a quotation with a number less than 10 that isn't written out?
Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions
Direct Implications Between USA and UK in Event of No-Deal Brexit
What is a typical Mizrachi Seder like?
Why do we say “un seul M” and not “une seule M” even though M is a “consonne”?
Small nick on power cord from an electric alarm clock, and copper wiring exposed but intact
Can this transistor (2N2222) take 6 V on emitter-base? Am I reading the datasheet incorrectly?
Masking layers by a vector polygon layer in QGIS
Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?
Gödel's incompleteness theorems - what are the religious implications?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?What are the philosophical implications of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem?Did Russell understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems?Relation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Karl Popper falsificationGödel's ontological proof and the incompleteness theoremAre there any work around after Godel's incompleteness theorems?What sources discuss Russell's response to Gödel's incompleteness theorems?Do Gödel's incompleteness theorems have any consequences for epistemology?Can Gödel's incompleteness theorems be applied to ethics?Poignancy because of Gödel's theorems - why?Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Implications for Science
Apparently Kurt Gödel believed that his incompleteness theorems have some kind of religious implications. Despite Gödel's belief in a personal God, this was still somewhat surprising to me. Discussions and theories about weird (i.e. outside of mathematics) consequences of his theorems are all over the internet, and are often labeled as misunderstandings or "crank" interpretations of his work. But Gödel himself seemed to think that there are indeed legitimate applications of his work to religion.
I recall reading the quote below a while ago. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe it was in response to Kurt Gödel having heard from his mother that a religious magazine or journal of some sort printed an article describing a simplified account of his incompleteness theorems for a general audience. The article then discussed some religious implications.
The actual quote from Gödel is:
It was something to be expected that sooner or later my proof will be
made useful for religion, since that is doubtless also justified in a
certain sense.
The quote can be viewed on page 125 of Reflections on Kurt Gödel
by Hao Wang, on Google Books as a preview. The context I described above is not there in the preview exactly as I remember, so I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere else (or am going insane). I do not have a copy of Wang's book either, so if anyone else wants to provide additional context beyond the preview or from other sources that is great.
My question is: What religious implications did Kurt Gödel think his incompleteness theorems have, and why?
My question is mainly about Gödel's own thoughts, but if anyone wants to speculate or "connect the dots" based on any other information they might have about Gödel's writing or thinking on the matter, this is more than welcome too.
logic theology philosophy-of-religion goedel
add a comment |
Apparently Kurt Gödel believed that his incompleteness theorems have some kind of religious implications. Despite Gödel's belief in a personal God, this was still somewhat surprising to me. Discussions and theories about weird (i.e. outside of mathematics) consequences of his theorems are all over the internet, and are often labeled as misunderstandings or "crank" interpretations of his work. But Gödel himself seemed to think that there are indeed legitimate applications of his work to religion.
I recall reading the quote below a while ago. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe it was in response to Kurt Gödel having heard from his mother that a religious magazine or journal of some sort printed an article describing a simplified account of his incompleteness theorems for a general audience. The article then discussed some religious implications.
The actual quote from Gödel is:
It was something to be expected that sooner or later my proof will be
made useful for religion, since that is doubtless also justified in a
certain sense.
The quote can be viewed on page 125 of Reflections on Kurt Gödel
by Hao Wang, on Google Books as a preview. The context I described above is not there in the preview exactly as I remember, so I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere else (or am going insane). I do not have a copy of Wang's book either, so if anyone else wants to provide additional context beyond the preview or from other sources that is great.
My question is: What religious implications did Kurt Gödel think his incompleteness theorems have, and why?
My question is mainly about Gödel's own thoughts, but if anyone wants to speculate or "connect the dots" based on any other information they might have about Gödel's writing or thinking on the matter, this is more than welcome too.
logic theology philosophy-of-religion goedel
add a comment |
Apparently Kurt Gödel believed that his incompleteness theorems have some kind of religious implications. Despite Gödel's belief in a personal God, this was still somewhat surprising to me. Discussions and theories about weird (i.e. outside of mathematics) consequences of his theorems are all over the internet, and are often labeled as misunderstandings or "crank" interpretations of his work. But Gödel himself seemed to think that there are indeed legitimate applications of his work to religion.
I recall reading the quote below a while ago. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe it was in response to Kurt Gödel having heard from his mother that a religious magazine or journal of some sort printed an article describing a simplified account of his incompleteness theorems for a general audience. The article then discussed some religious implications.
The actual quote from Gödel is:
It was something to be expected that sooner or later my proof will be
made useful for religion, since that is doubtless also justified in a
certain sense.
The quote can be viewed on page 125 of Reflections on Kurt Gödel
by Hao Wang, on Google Books as a preview. The context I described above is not there in the preview exactly as I remember, so I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere else (or am going insane). I do not have a copy of Wang's book either, so if anyone else wants to provide additional context beyond the preview or from other sources that is great.
My question is: What religious implications did Kurt Gödel think his incompleteness theorems have, and why?
My question is mainly about Gödel's own thoughts, but if anyone wants to speculate or "connect the dots" based on any other information they might have about Gödel's writing or thinking on the matter, this is more than welcome too.
logic theology philosophy-of-religion goedel
Apparently Kurt Gödel believed that his incompleteness theorems have some kind of religious implications. Despite Gödel's belief in a personal God, this was still somewhat surprising to me. Discussions and theories about weird (i.e. outside of mathematics) consequences of his theorems are all over the internet, and are often labeled as misunderstandings or "crank" interpretations of his work. But Gödel himself seemed to think that there are indeed legitimate applications of his work to religion.
I recall reading the quote below a while ago. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe it was in response to Kurt Gödel having heard from his mother that a religious magazine or journal of some sort printed an article describing a simplified account of his incompleteness theorems for a general audience. The article then discussed some religious implications.
The actual quote from Gödel is:
It was something to be expected that sooner or later my proof will be
made useful for religion, since that is doubtless also justified in a
certain sense.
The quote can be viewed on page 125 of Reflections on Kurt Gödel
by Hao Wang, on Google Books as a preview. The context I described above is not there in the preview exactly as I remember, so I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere else (or am going insane). I do not have a copy of Wang's book either, so if anyone else wants to provide additional context beyond the preview or from other sources that is great.
My question is: What religious implications did Kurt Gödel think his incompleteness theorems have, and why?
My question is mainly about Gödel's own thoughts, but if anyone wants to speculate or "connect the dots" based on any other information they might have about Gödel's writing or thinking on the matter, this is more than welcome too.
logic theology philosophy-of-religion goedel
logic theology philosophy-of-religion goedel
asked 8 hours ago
AdamAdam
4108
4108
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Gödel's theism is discussed by Franzen in Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guideto Its Use and Abuse. He penned a version of the ontological argument, and in 1961 ranked the worldviews “according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion)... Skepticism, materialism, and positivism stand on one side; spiritualism, idealism, and theology on the other”. Idealism "in its pantheistic form” is dismissed as as “a weakened form of theology in the proper sense”. Nonetheless, he did not attempt to draw theistic conclusions from the incompleteness theorem:
"Gödel sometimes described himself as a theist and believed in the possibility
of a “rational theology,” although he did not belong to any church. In
[Wang 87] he is quoted as remarking that “I believe that there is much
more reason in religion, though not in the churches, that one commonly
believes...” Among his unpublished papers was a version of St. Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. More precisely, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God-like individual, where x is defined to be God-like if every
essential property of x is positive and x has every positive property as an
essential property. As this explanation of “God-like” should make clear,
Godel’s idea of a rational theology was not of an evangelical character,
and Oskar Morgenstern relates ([Dawson 97, p. 237]) that he hesitated to
publish the proof “for fear that a belief in God might be ascribed to him,
whereas, he said, it was undertaken as a purely logical investigation, to
demonstrate that such a proof could be carried out on the basis of accepted
principles of formal logic.” Although Gödel was thus not at all averse to theological reasoning, he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions from the incompleteness theorem."
This did not stop others from doing just that, or even ascribing it to Gödel. Much of it is also discussed by Franzen: there can be no "theory of everything", existence of truths which can not be mechanically derived imply the existence of God, for ultimate truth is beyond reason, methodology of science cannot be based upon science only, scientists must rely on faith as much as non-scientists, finite beings can never answer all the questions they seek after, etc., etc. Related, although not exatly theological, is the Penrose-Lucas argument that "consciousness" surpasses Turing machines. For a recent sampler, see e.g. Goldman's God of Mathematicians:
"At twenty-five he ruined the positivist hope of making mathematics into a self-contained formal system with his incompleteness theorems, implying, as he noted, that machines never will be able to think, and computer algorithms never will replace intuition. To Gödel this implies that we cannot give a credible account of reality without God.
[...] Whether or not we believe, as did Gödel, in Leibniz’s God, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
Other attempted drawings of implications suffer from similar reasoning by loose association, they are not so much implications as vague analogies. And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's), it is true that Gödel was quite preoccupied with Leibniz himself, see Why did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
1
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61547%2fg%25c3%25b6dels-incompleteness-theorems-what-are-the-religious-implications%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Gödel's theism is discussed by Franzen in Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guideto Its Use and Abuse. He penned a version of the ontological argument, and in 1961 ranked the worldviews “according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion)... Skepticism, materialism, and positivism stand on one side; spiritualism, idealism, and theology on the other”. Idealism "in its pantheistic form” is dismissed as as “a weakened form of theology in the proper sense”. Nonetheless, he did not attempt to draw theistic conclusions from the incompleteness theorem:
"Gödel sometimes described himself as a theist and believed in the possibility
of a “rational theology,” although he did not belong to any church. In
[Wang 87] he is quoted as remarking that “I believe that there is much
more reason in religion, though not in the churches, that one commonly
believes...” Among his unpublished papers was a version of St. Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. More precisely, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God-like individual, where x is defined to be God-like if every
essential property of x is positive and x has every positive property as an
essential property. As this explanation of “God-like” should make clear,
Godel’s idea of a rational theology was not of an evangelical character,
and Oskar Morgenstern relates ([Dawson 97, p. 237]) that he hesitated to
publish the proof “for fear that a belief in God might be ascribed to him,
whereas, he said, it was undertaken as a purely logical investigation, to
demonstrate that such a proof could be carried out on the basis of accepted
principles of formal logic.” Although Gödel was thus not at all averse to theological reasoning, he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions from the incompleteness theorem."
This did not stop others from doing just that, or even ascribing it to Gödel. Much of it is also discussed by Franzen: there can be no "theory of everything", existence of truths which can not be mechanically derived imply the existence of God, for ultimate truth is beyond reason, methodology of science cannot be based upon science only, scientists must rely on faith as much as non-scientists, finite beings can never answer all the questions they seek after, etc., etc. Related, although not exatly theological, is the Penrose-Lucas argument that "consciousness" surpasses Turing machines. For a recent sampler, see e.g. Goldman's God of Mathematicians:
"At twenty-five he ruined the positivist hope of making mathematics into a self-contained formal system with his incompleteness theorems, implying, as he noted, that machines never will be able to think, and computer algorithms never will replace intuition. To Gödel this implies that we cannot give a credible account of reality without God.
[...] Whether or not we believe, as did Gödel, in Leibniz’s God, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
Other attempted drawings of implications suffer from similar reasoning by loose association, they are not so much implications as vague analogies. And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's), it is true that Gödel was quite preoccupied with Leibniz himself, see Why did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
1
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
add a comment |
Gödel's theism is discussed by Franzen in Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guideto Its Use and Abuse. He penned a version of the ontological argument, and in 1961 ranked the worldviews “according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion)... Skepticism, materialism, and positivism stand on one side; spiritualism, idealism, and theology on the other”. Idealism "in its pantheistic form” is dismissed as as “a weakened form of theology in the proper sense”. Nonetheless, he did not attempt to draw theistic conclusions from the incompleteness theorem:
"Gödel sometimes described himself as a theist and believed in the possibility
of a “rational theology,” although he did not belong to any church. In
[Wang 87] he is quoted as remarking that “I believe that there is much
more reason in religion, though not in the churches, that one commonly
believes...” Among his unpublished papers was a version of St. Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. More precisely, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God-like individual, where x is defined to be God-like if every
essential property of x is positive and x has every positive property as an
essential property. As this explanation of “God-like” should make clear,
Godel’s idea of a rational theology was not of an evangelical character,
and Oskar Morgenstern relates ([Dawson 97, p. 237]) that he hesitated to
publish the proof “for fear that a belief in God might be ascribed to him,
whereas, he said, it was undertaken as a purely logical investigation, to
demonstrate that such a proof could be carried out on the basis of accepted
principles of formal logic.” Although Gödel was thus not at all averse to theological reasoning, he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions from the incompleteness theorem."
This did not stop others from doing just that, or even ascribing it to Gödel. Much of it is also discussed by Franzen: there can be no "theory of everything", existence of truths which can not be mechanically derived imply the existence of God, for ultimate truth is beyond reason, methodology of science cannot be based upon science only, scientists must rely on faith as much as non-scientists, finite beings can never answer all the questions they seek after, etc., etc. Related, although not exatly theological, is the Penrose-Lucas argument that "consciousness" surpasses Turing machines. For a recent sampler, see e.g. Goldman's God of Mathematicians:
"At twenty-five he ruined the positivist hope of making mathematics into a self-contained formal system with his incompleteness theorems, implying, as he noted, that machines never will be able to think, and computer algorithms never will replace intuition. To Gödel this implies that we cannot give a credible account of reality without God.
[...] Whether or not we believe, as did Gödel, in Leibniz’s God, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
Other attempted drawings of implications suffer from similar reasoning by loose association, they are not so much implications as vague analogies. And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's), it is true that Gödel was quite preoccupied with Leibniz himself, see Why did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
1
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
add a comment |
Gödel's theism is discussed by Franzen in Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guideto Its Use and Abuse. He penned a version of the ontological argument, and in 1961 ranked the worldviews “according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion)... Skepticism, materialism, and positivism stand on one side; spiritualism, idealism, and theology on the other”. Idealism "in its pantheistic form” is dismissed as as “a weakened form of theology in the proper sense”. Nonetheless, he did not attempt to draw theistic conclusions from the incompleteness theorem:
"Gödel sometimes described himself as a theist and believed in the possibility
of a “rational theology,” although he did not belong to any church. In
[Wang 87] he is quoted as remarking that “I believe that there is much
more reason in religion, though not in the churches, that one commonly
believes...” Among his unpublished papers was a version of St. Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. More precisely, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God-like individual, where x is defined to be God-like if every
essential property of x is positive and x has every positive property as an
essential property. As this explanation of “God-like” should make clear,
Godel’s idea of a rational theology was not of an evangelical character,
and Oskar Morgenstern relates ([Dawson 97, p. 237]) that he hesitated to
publish the proof “for fear that a belief in God might be ascribed to him,
whereas, he said, it was undertaken as a purely logical investigation, to
demonstrate that such a proof could be carried out on the basis of accepted
principles of formal logic.” Although Gödel was thus not at all averse to theological reasoning, he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions from the incompleteness theorem."
This did not stop others from doing just that, or even ascribing it to Gödel. Much of it is also discussed by Franzen: there can be no "theory of everything", existence of truths which can not be mechanically derived imply the existence of God, for ultimate truth is beyond reason, methodology of science cannot be based upon science only, scientists must rely on faith as much as non-scientists, finite beings can never answer all the questions they seek after, etc., etc. Related, although not exatly theological, is the Penrose-Lucas argument that "consciousness" surpasses Turing machines. For a recent sampler, see e.g. Goldman's God of Mathematicians:
"At twenty-five he ruined the positivist hope of making mathematics into a self-contained formal system with his incompleteness theorems, implying, as he noted, that machines never will be able to think, and computer algorithms never will replace intuition. To Gödel this implies that we cannot give a credible account of reality without God.
[...] Whether or not we believe, as did Gödel, in Leibniz’s God, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
Other attempted drawings of implications suffer from similar reasoning by loose association, they are not so much implications as vague analogies. And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's), it is true that Gödel was quite preoccupied with Leibniz himself, see Why did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?
Gödel's theism is discussed by Franzen in Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guideto Its Use and Abuse. He penned a version of the ontological argument, and in 1961 ranked the worldviews “according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion)... Skepticism, materialism, and positivism stand on one side; spiritualism, idealism, and theology on the other”. Idealism "in its pantheistic form” is dismissed as as “a weakened form of theology in the proper sense”. Nonetheless, he did not attempt to draw theistic conclusions from the incompleteness theorem:
"Gödel sometimes described himself as a theist and believed in the possibility
of a “rational theology,” although he did not belong to any church. In
[Wang 87] he is quoted as remarking that “I believe that there is much
more reason in religion, though not in the churches, that one commonly
believes...” Among his unpublished papers was a version of St. Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. More precisely, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God-like individual, where x is defined to be God-like if every
essential property of x is positive and x has every positive property as an
essential property. As this explanation of “God-like” should make clear,
Godel’s idea of a rational theology was not of an evangelical character,
and Oskar Morgenstern relates ([Dawson 97, p. 237]) that he hesitated to
publish the proof “for fear that a belief in God might be ascribed to him,
whereas, he said, it was undertaken as a purely logical investigation, to
demonstrate that such a proof could be carried out on the basis of accepted
principles of formal logic.” Although Gödel was thus not at all averse to theological reasoning, he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions from the incompleteness theorem."
This did not stop others from doing just that, or even ascribing it to Gödel. Much of it is also discussed by Franzen: there can be no "theory of everything", existence of truths which can not be mechanically derived imply the existence of God, for ultimate truth is beyond reason, methodology of science cannot be based upon science only, scientists must rely on faith as much as non-scientists, finite beings can never answer all the questions they seek after, etc., etc. Related, although not exatly theological, is the Penrose-Lucas argument that "consciousness" surpasses Turing machines. For a recent sampler, see e.g. Goldman's God of Mathematicians:
"At twenty-five he ruined the positivist hope of making mathematics into a self-contained formal system with his incompleteness theorems, implying, as he noted, that machines never will be able to think, and computer algorithms never will replace intuition. To Gödel this implies that we cannot give a credible account of reality without God.
[...] Whether or not we believe, as did Gödel, in Leibniz’s God, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
Other attempted drawings of implications suffer from similar reasoning by loose association, they are not so much implications as vague analogies. And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's), it is true that Gödel was quite preoccupied with Leibniz himself, see Why did Gödel believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz's works?
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
ConifoldConifold
36.7k257146
36.7k257146
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
1
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
add a comment |
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
1
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Thank you. Given that "he did not attempt to draw any theological conclusions" together with my quote of him above, it seems that Godel may have been open (and even welcome) to theological implications, but he never actually tried to work out any himself. Personally I think it's a shame that Godel didn't (as far as I could tell) ever publish a "mature" philosophy of religion. Most of what I could find (on the web anyways) about Godel's theistic worldview, besides his ontological argument, are cryptic fragments and informal letters to his mother about his thoughts on an afterlife.
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
Another thing. When you wrote: "And while it is not clear that Gödel's God was Leibniz's God exactly (as opposed to, say, Anselm's)", are you referring to the theistic personalist vs. the classical theist conception of God?
– Adam
5 hours ago
1
1
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
@Adam I am not sure we have enough information to decide what Gödel's God was. He did say to Wang “My theory is a monadology with a central monad [namely God]. It is like the monadology by Leibniz in its general structure”. His notes, named Max Phil, allude to "rational theology". His only continuous theological text is a reworking of Anselm's argument. Ternullo tries to extract something from his Platonism and affinity to Cantor's "absolute infinite".
– Conifold
4 hours ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
Thanks @Conifold for an excellent conspectus of the situation. You do mention Gödel's relation with the ontological argument. Maybe good to also put a link? (such as en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )
– Rusi
35 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61547%2fg%25c3%25b6dels-incompleteness-theorems-what-are-the-religious-implications%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown