Any Model of Reality Requires a Leap of Faith

Yesterday's post touched on the criteria we use to judge models of reality, whether these models be scientific, metaphysical, or theological, and decided that these criteria should include fruitfulness, logic, coherence, applicability to human experience, and comprehensiveness or scope. 

Now, revelation is a model which, at the very least, presupposes a kind of meta-model in which the Ultimate Reality is able to communicate its nature to human beings. 

More generally, we can all agree that reality speaks, otherwise the world would be unintelligible. But here we have the very source of the world's intelligibility speaking directly to us. Which I suppose must be possible, even if has never actually occurred.

Before judging the content of this so-called revelation, we must consider the source: is this really from the author of being, or from some pretender? Is some pneumopath just furiously deepaking the chopra, like L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith? 

And if it is from God, how can we presume to judge the supreme judge of human affairs? But does God really want us to accept the message on blind faith? Or does he wish to engage the intellect, which, after all, is that in man which most resembles the divine principle?  

Whatever the case may be, some kind of judgment must be made, but on what basis? 

Again, perhaps in the same way we judge a scientific theory, which will explain a great deal -- i.e., unify the phenomena -- in such a way that it doesn't unexplain what had previously been understood. 

Looked at this way, the revelation in question needs to make more sense of our lives than anything else on offer. It must transcend science while not in any way negating it, because science (obviously) explains a great deal, even if it has necessary limits. But of course science can never explain itself, let alone the scientist.

Let's think this through. First of all, we either need revelation or we don't. In other words, either we can form an accurate and complete model of the cosmos via wholly natural resources, or we can't. If we can't, then there is either no remedy to our ignorance, or we are in need of a vertical murmurandom to complete the model.

We ourselves can never arrive at a complete and consistent model of reality. Stanley Jaki, in his Brain, Mind and Computers, correctly notes that Gödel's theorems prove

that even in the elementary parts of arithmetic there are propositions which cannot be proved or disproved in that system (emphasis mine).

And if that isn't enough to put a crimp your day, his analysis implies that no formal system of any kind "is immune to the bearing of Gödel's conclusion."

So, the mind is not, and cannot be, a logic machine. If it were, it could never know it, because it would be confined to the closed circle of logical entailment. Which I suspect also goes to our freedom, since it too escapes necessity. 

A machine

can have only a finite number of components and it can operate only on a finite number of initial assumptions....  

Gödel's theorem, therefore, cuts the ground under the efforts that view machines... as adequate models of the mind.

A machine "can never produce at least one truth, which the mind can without relying on other minds.... No matter how perfect the machine, it can never do everything that the human mind can." 

So, it seems that our most perfect manmade system of thought will necessarily have to put its faith in at least one thought or principle or axiom or assumption or intuition or speculation or delusion or hallucination that the system cannot justify, and which comes from outside (transcends) the system.

Therefore, if I am following my argument correctly, whatever your model, there is no escaping faith. 

All can agree that either we need revelation or we don't. Looks like we do, but just because we need it, that doesn't mean it exists. What we call revelation could be -- and for the materialist must be -- just self-deception. It is as if we are unconsciously trying to get around the theorems by pretending to a completeness that is forever inaccessible to us.

However, I recently found out that Gödel not only believed in a personal God, but thought he could prove the existence of an afterlife:

I am convinced of this, independently of any theology. It is possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning that it is entirely consistent with the known facts. If the world is rationally constructed and has a meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife] (quoted in Wang).

It is indeed ironic -- or inevitable? -- "that the greatest logician since Aristotle" thought "God's existence could be proved a priori" (Goldstein).  

Nevertheless, which God? What is he like?  

Andrew Klavan asks, "if the human condition is the puzzle, which of the oldest solutions endure and what has Christianity added to them?"  

Good questions which we will bear in mind in our quest for the mother of all models. Meanwhile,

In summary, this text argues for the potential necessity of revelation due to the inherent limitations of human reason, as illustrated by Gödel's theorems. It proposes criteria for evaluating claims of revelation and ends by posing fundamental questions about the nature and source of such revelation.

No post is complete without an image:

And an explanation: 

The image is an abstract artwork, rendered in a high-quality, professional style. It interweaves intricate geometric patterns, reminiscent of scientific diagrams, with swirling, ethereal forms suggestive of spiritual energy. Minimalist human figures are subtly integrated, symbolizing the intellect's quest for knowledge. 

The color palette blends deep blues and violets, representing the vastness of the cosmos and the depths of human thought, with vibrant orange and gold accents, suggesting enlightenment and the pursuit of truth. The composition creates a sense of dynamism and tension, evoking profound questions about existence and our place in the universe, highlighting the limits of human perception and understanding.