Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

 Well, I agree with your conclusion and that's the important thing. -Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: philtill@aol.com
To: mlucid@aol.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 9:15 am
Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

I'm saying that any rational system we humans can devise is inherently confined to a finite set of rules all of which cannot be proven without expanding the system.? The real world is in no way similarly confined to a finite set of enabling criteria (rules).?
I suspect you didn't follow the argument in my original post on Godel's theorem.? I argued that if the reductionist program is operating upon a correct concept of nature, then nature would necessarily be ontologically incomplete (according to Godel's theorem), along the lines of what you state above.? Thus, reductio ad absurdum, the reductionist program cannot ultimately succeed.? Thus, Godel's theorem does tell us something about the real world:? it tells us that it is not ultimately comprehended by the reductionist program.

Phil

-----Original Message-----

From: mlucid@aol.com

To: philtill@aol.com

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 4:54 pm

Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

From: philtill@aol.com

If Godel's proof applies to anything, it applies only to the mind of man and never to the real world.? Math is a mental construct first and foremost and a reflection of the nature of reality second.??
But Mike, this is like saying that mechanical analysis only applies to the mind of man and never to the bridge trusses in the real world.? And physics is not so complex.? It is extremely simple, reflecting basic symmetries, and that is why physics works.

I'm not saying that our rational symbolic systems aren't accurate.? I'm saying that they are context limited.? I'm saying that they are inherently insufficient not only to all the rest of existing truths as they may range beyond our systems, but insufficient even to some truths within their purview, just like Godel's theorem states.

Godel's Theorem states that you cannot prove all statements within a mathematical system without going outside of that system for new axioms (but in doing so you incur further unprovable statements).? I'm saying that any rational system we humans can devise is inherently confined to a finite set of rules all of which cannot be proven without expanding the system.? The real world is in no way similarly confined to a finite set of enabling criteria (rules).? The real world has all the rules we will ever discover and all the rules that we will never know and all the rules that are unknowable by mere human beings upon which to manifest the tiny part of Creation that we can currently get our hands on.?

Science is enormously relevant but contextually limited in terms of the "Truth."? Just ask yourself how magnificent our science will seem to humans ten thousand years from now.? Everything we treasure as the pinnacle of achievement will be seen as laughably naive just as we see our predecessors.? And that is the best of all possible outcomes.? In this way, you can see how presuming a transcendent God gives your rational mind the humbleness required for a more accurate view of the universe and our current place in it.? God can actually advance our predictions of the character of the unknown by the natural presumption that immanent Creation ultimately reflects its transcendent Creator.? (The Big Bang is just a little pop among billions of little pops, just like everything else we've ever examined, just like the quark is no more the elemental building block of the universe than the stars are, and so on, and so on, beyond our human ability to rationally fathom but not beyond our
 ability to faithfully intuit.)

-Mike (Friend of ASA ).?

-----Original Message-----

From: mlucid@aol.com

To: philtill@aol.com

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 2:10 pm

Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

From: philtill@aol.com

> So, if the present course of scientific reductionism is working with a correct view of nature, then Godel's proof applies to nature.? Note that I'm not saying it applies to our understanding of nature or to science, which is an epistemological question, but that it applies to nature directly, which is an ontological question.

I don't understand your perspective here on Godel's theorem.? If Godel's proof applies to anything, it applies only to the mind of man and never to the real world.? Math is a mental construct first and foremost and a reflection of the nature of reality second.?? What we see as logical or rational is a simplification of the functioning of the real world in our minds (a neurological simulation of the real world).? The real world is far and away more complicated and infinitely more "reducible" than our minds can ever be.

To my mind Godel's proof speaks more to the fact that our knowledge is insufficient to its own context, much less the context of the universe it perceives.? Applied to the actual physical world all a reductionist's view of Godel's theorem might indicate is that the relevance of a certain issue might dissipate to zero as you range far enough "up" or "down" the scalar spectrum like we humans have to do in our mind's eye (being trapped as we are at one perspective here at the human scale).? But the real world is the full context of all things joined in the continuum beyond our minuscule ability to symbolize it.? To say that Godel's theorem "applies": to the universe is putting the Descartes before the horse.? (AAAHAHAHahahahahhaha!? Been waiting all my life for that pun.)

Nature itself cannot be complete and cannot ensure its own internal logical consistency?-- its own being -- if it were the sort of thing that could comply with the reductionist program in physics all the way to the end.

You are assuming an "end" that nature itself strongly suggest does not exist.? In that nature has expanded our estimate of the size of the continuum by a factor of over a TRILLION in both directions of scale (vast and tiny) over the last three centuries suggests far more that it never ends than it does that men might be anywhere close to finding some security blanket terminus for Creation.? A terminal world would be a mere "ship in a bottle" for a transcendent God.? An infinite world would be just the thing for dissuading our hubris that we humans might think ourselves equal to that task of symbolizing Creation. Until you find an end you shouldn't look for it.? Such a philosophy slows you down by discouraging the expectation of an ongoing scalar expanse the discovery of which always continues to surprises us arrogant humans.?

Hence, reductio ad absurdum, the reductionist program in physics cannot be?ultimately successful.? At some point prior to explaining everything, reductionism stops.

Now, we're back on the same page.? Reductionism has a chance of succeeding if the world is finite, but if not, you can bet the farm that human reductionism will forever comprise an infinitesimal terminal nugget of relevance within an infinite context of Creation.? Praise God.?

There must be an infinite number of axioms required to describe nature, _and_ there must have been an uncountable number of computations performed outside of the Turing machine processes of physics in order to obtain a set of axioms that w ill be internally consistent.? But this assumes something exists outside the Turing machine of nature to perform the computations, which cannot be treated by scientific reductionism.

Not unless we earn an infinite amount of time to examine Creation and evolve into something worthy of our Creator that might overcome the fact that we have an actual starting date and haven't already been exploring for eternity.? Such additionally transcendent circumstance, I have no doubt, is possible for humans to earn from God, but enormously improbable given our current inability to come to grips with an ever burgeoning capability for self-extinction.?

So if ultimate reductionism is not possible, then the whole process David outlines must break down at some point.? But we don't know what that point is.?

That point will be when we go extinct.? Otherwise we will simply be confined to a finite understanding of an infinite Creation just like it's always been.? There is no particular intrinsic breakdown looming in our future.? Guys like Horgan (the End of Science) and those who imagine in arrogance that they can actually devise a "Theory of Everything" are kidding themselves.? We already had a theory of everything in Newton's laws, and as exquisite as it was, it was no such thing.? It goes on and on, just like everything we ever experienced indicates.? It is only our psychological need to see ourselves as some kind of super special entity with our own rational conclusion and purpose that we expect resolution of Creation.? Don't hold your breath.? It is not our instinct for our transcendent God that fails us, it is our rational translation (the Dumbing Down) of that instinct that all the insanity ensues.?

So we press on in the reductionist program as?far as we can go, and we don't worry what lies beyond the limits of reductionism nor how it may affect the limits of theology.? We don't yet know what those limits are, and whatever lies beyond them will probably be outside the purview of science as long as we live in this universe, unless some alternative to reductionism can be devised, or unless we find some way to describe nature that does not operate as a Turing machine.

It's a beautiful thing faith.? Can't find anything amiss in my mind about this final paragraph.? Our instincts are the same when it comes to the ultimate relationship with God, I imagine.? Only our subsequent rational earthly presumptions diverge, and that's all angels on the head of a pin compared to the essentials of faith, to my way of thinking (tortured as it certainly is by the very arrogance and hubris it so stridently decries).

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

Phil

-----Original Message-----

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>

To: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>

Cc: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 2:31 pm

Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

On 11/29/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

Steve said:? And even if Natural selection *may* have *some* explanatory power for levels above biology, I don't think that necessarily means we are being reductionist.

Yes, I agree, and I'm?ok with that notion.? But what I wonder is whether this is really being consistent in how TE's, at least evangelical TE's, approach the science.? Isn't the truly consistent view to swallow the whole package?? Maybe another way to put it is, why posit a "gap" in evolution at the level of the human mind / soul?? Isn't that imposing an a priori theological view, drawn from special revelation, onto the science?

?

?

I don't think it is necessary to swallow the whole package. If you compare and constrast the TE's gap with ID's gap the one thing that sticks out is the TE's gap is immaterial and thus beyond the explanatory capabilities of science. It is possible to get reductionistic here like Descartes did who said the place where the soul and body merge is the Pineal Gland (because it formed a point and thus appealed to Descartes' reductionism.)? But, I don't believe reductionism is necessary and given the anthropology found in Scripture if you find that you are being reductionistic that should be a warning sign that your?variety of TE?may be on the wrong track. To do so is to as the saying goes is a foolish consistency and is thus the hobgoblin of little minds.

?

One other thing that differentiates the two gaps is one is an argument from silence while the other one is based on a positive statement of Scripture. Gaps are not per se the problem with ID but rather the argument from silence. We should oppose something merely because there are "gaps" -- and I am afraid Collins does this while not seeing his own "gaps". ?If you believe in First Causes like evangelicals do, then there will be gaps. But, because there are also Second Causes some apparent gaps are not really so. If Scripture posits supernatural causation for something -- like it does for the creation of the human soul -- then you are more likely to be correct about your gap then if it does not.

?

Rich Blinne (member ASA)

?

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 3 11:06:39 2007