4 ms·

I think the orthodox Christian approach makes the most sense, a combination of faith and reason. It is undeniable that some essential aspects of life are beyon

by yters 8y ago

I think the orthodox Christian approach makes the most sense, a combination of faith and reason. It is undeniable that some essential aspects of life are beyond rational dissection. Yet, on the other hand, this does not entail that life is inherently irrational, and the parts we can rationally comprehend do not contradict the parts that we cannot comprehend. One of the key texts of this concept is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. The author of Hebrews explains how this seemingly irrational command of God and Abraham's willingness to follow it is actually based on a more fundamental sequence of reasoning, derived from Abraham's hope in a life after death and the resurrection of the body. Kierkegaard seems to have not read Hebrews and instead misinterprets Abraham's sacrifice as an irrational "leap of faith," which is unfortunately how faith is now understood in contemporary culture. This is also the fallacious root of the current "war" between science and religion.

behindmyscreen 8y ago
It’s actually quite deniable. Not being able to explain something doesn’t mean there are supernatural reasons for the unexplained.
- yters 8y ago
  It's actually logically necessary. This is known in philosophy as the problem of the criterion. Every syllogism starts with premises, and at some point the premises have to be a fundamental given that cannot be further dissected. All of our fields of knowledge have this characteristic. They all have a set of foundational concepts. It is also related to Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are an infinite number of truths that cannot be derived from any finite axiomatic system. These truths are "beyond rational comprehension." If we are able to access these truths then we must have some meta-rational cognitive capability. This is an aspect of what Christianity calls 'faith', i.e. belief in that which cannot be seen, yet which is not an irrational made up belief. One obvious area this shows up in is the concept of infinity. There is no way to derive such a concept from any finite axiom. Since everything we experience in the physical world is finite, yet the concept of infinity is extremely useful in STEM, this leaves us with a dilemma. Either STEM is based on a fundamentally false concept, which is absurd, or we have access to truth beyond the finite realm. This observation was made by Eugene Wigner in his article "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".
  - msla 8y ago
    > It is also related to Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are an infinite number of truths that cannot be derived from any finite axiomatic system. These truths are "beyond rational comprehension." This isn't what it means. It simply means that all axiom systems of a certain form have that limit, not that human knowledge itself does. > One obvious area this shows up in is the concept of infinity. There is no way to derive such a concept from any finite axiom. Obviously false, given even Peano arithmetic. > Every syllogism starts with premises, and at some point the premises have to be a fundamental given that cannot be further dissected. All of our fields of knowledge have this characteristic. They all have a set of foundational concepts. Except we can interrogate reality and build from there. We're not reasoning in a vacuum.
    - yters 8y ago
      If human knowledge is bound in brains which run on the laws of physics, then axiomatic systems are all we can ever have. That being said, I agree human knowledge is not limited by GIT. However, this is proof that the human mind transcends the finite physical realm. Regarding infinity, check out the Wikipedia article on the axiom of infinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity#Interpretation_and_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity#Interpretati... "However, the other axioms are insufficient to prove the existence of the set of all natural numbers. Therefore, its existence is taken as an axiom—the axiom of infinity."
      - PixyMisa 8y ago
        > That being said, I agree human knowledge is not limited by GIT. That's like saying 2 + 2 is not limited by being 4. You can "know" that 2 + 2 is 5. You're just wrong.
        yters 8y ago
        That doesn't follow. The human mind could be meta-rational so it can generate new consistent axioms that cannot be derived from the existing known axioms. The history of mathematical progress seems to be pretty good evidence our minds can do this.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by yters 8y ago

behindmyscreen 8y ago

It’s actually quite deniable. Not being able to explain something doesn’t mean there are supernatural reasons for the unexplained.

yters 8y ago
It's actually logically necessary. This is known in philosophy as the problem of the criterion. Every syllogism starts with premises, and at some point the premises have to be a fundamental given that cannot be further dissected. All of our fields of knowledge have this characteristic. They all have a set of foundational concepts. It is also related to Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are an infinite number of truths that cannot be derived from any finite axiomatic system. These truths are "beyond rational comprehension." If we are able to access these truths then we must have some meta-rational cognitive capability. This is an aspect of what Christianity calls 'faith', i.e. belief in that which cannot be seen, yet which is not an irrational made up belief. One obvious area this shows up in is the concept of infinity. There is no way to derive such a concept from any finite axiom. Since everything we experience in the physical world is finite, yet the concept of infinity is extremely useful in STEM, this leaves us with a dilemma. Either STEM is based on a fundamentally false concept, which is absurd, or we have access to truth beyond the finite realm. This observation was made by Eugene Wigner in his article "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".
- msla 8y ago
  > It is also related to Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are an infinite number of truths that cannot be derived from any finite axiomatic system. These truths are "beyond rational comprehension." This isn't what it means. It simply means that all axiom systems of a certain form have that limit, not that human knowledge itself does. > One obvious area this shows up in is the concept of infinity. There is no way to derive such a concept from any finite axiom. Obviously false, given even Peano arithmetic. > Every syllogism starts with premises, and at some point the premises have to be a fundamental given that cannot be further dissected. All of our fields of knowledge have this characteristic. They all have a set of foundational concepts. Except we can interrogate reality and build from there. We're not reasoning in a vacuum.
  - yters 8y ago
    If human knowledge is bound in brains which run on the laws of physics, then axiomatic systems are all we can ever have. That being said, I agree human knowledge is not limited by GIT. However, this is proof that the human mind transcends the finite physical realm. Regarding infinity, check out the Wikipedia article on the axiom of infinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity#Interpretation_and_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity#Interpretati... "However, the other axioms are insufficient to prove the existence of the set of all natural numbers. Therefore, its existence is taken as an axiom—the axiom of infinity."
    - PixyMisa 8y ago
      > That being said, I agree human knowledge is not limited by GIT. That's like saying 2 + 2 is not limited by being 4. You can "know" that 2 + 2 is 5. You're just wrong.
      - yters 8y ago
        That doesn't follow. The human mind could be meta-rational so it can generate new consistent axioms that cannot be derived from the existing known axioms. The history of mathematical progress seems to be pretty good evidence our minds can do this.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]