Religion Retention Rates

[_LittleNipper]

Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God formulated by mathematician Kurt Gödel. The real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler.

"Scientists Prove Existence of God," appeared as a headline in German daily Die Welt. What the researchers say they have proven is a theorem put forward by the famous Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel. The real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in various scientific research applying today's technology.

When Gödel died in 1978, he left behind an interesting theory founded upon modal logic -- that a higher being must be logical. The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are very deep, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God represents the ultimate. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, God must be a reality.

Even back then, the argument was not a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the necessity of the existence of God. But this mathematical model of Gödel proposed a proof for the idea. Its theorems and axioms can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that meaning they can be proven.

Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna used an ordinary MacBook computer. They have shown that Gödel's proof was correct on a mathematical level. Their initial submission on the arXiv.org research article server is entitled "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel's Proof of God's Existence." The fact that formalizing complicated theorems can be entered on computer opens up all kinds of possibilities. "It's totally amazing that from this argument led by Gödel, all this stuff can be proven automatically in a few seconds or less.

The name Gödel enjoys a reputation similar to Albert Einstein. He also moving to the United States after World War II broke out to work at Princeton. It was not until the early 1970s, when Gödel feared that he might die, that it first became public.

Now Benzmüller hopes that using such a headline-friendly example can help draw attention to the method. "I didn't know it would create such a huge public interest but (Gödel's ontological proof) was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence," the scientist added. "It's a very small, crisp thing, because we are just dealing with six axioms in a little theorem. … There might be other things that use similar logic. Can we develop computer systems to check each single step and make sure they are now right?"

The scientists, who have been working together since the beginning of the year, believe their work could have many practical applications in areas such as artificial intelligence and the verification of software and hardware.

Benzmüller also pointed out that there are many scientists working on similar subject areas. He himself was inspired to tackle the topic by a book entitled "Types, Tableaus and Gödel's God," by Melvin Fitting.

The use of computers to reduce the burden on mathematicians is not new, even if it is not welcomed by everyone. American mathematician Doron Zeilberger has been listing the name Shalosh B. Ekhad on his scientific papers since the 1980s. According to the New York-based Simons Foundation, the name is actually a pseudonym for the computers he uses. Zeilberger says he gave the computer a human-sounding name "to make a statement that computers should get credit where credit is due." "human-centric bigotry" on the part of mathematicians, he says, has limited progress.

[_ClarkGoble]

That sounds like just a variation of Anselm's argument formalized using modal logic combined with modal realism. Godel was a platonist and in some ways his theorem was an argument for mathematical realism (that math was real rather than constructed out of logic or arbitrary rules with symbolic manipulation). The problem is that there's a hidden premise in such arguments that makes it far less convincing. So one can take Godel's theorem as just saying what we can say is true or false without implying much more than that. Godel uses it because he thinks we have intuitions of things being true or false independent of being able to show it. But that hidden premise ends up just being the assumption of realism. Likewise casting Anselm's argument into modal form only works if you first assume modal realism (the idea that all possibilities are mind independent and thus real of our thinking about them). But modal realism is a pretty controversial position. (I think it's right, but most people don't)

I should also add this isn't the only way to interpret Anselm. There are other non-ontological takes on the ontological argument such as done by the phenomenologist Marion.

Which is all a long way of saying I'm really skeptical this says anything about God. Here's a good source on the modal arguments of Anselm if you're interested:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/#H4

(Sorry if this is threadjacking - just replying to the prior comment)

Edit: here's the paper the prior comment referred to: http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf It's actually a bit more sophisticated than say Plantinga's modal form of Anselm. Although as the authors state up front some of the premises are controversial.

[_Physics Guy]

Thanks for the paper link. The theorem is valid, but this by no means implies that God exists, because the axioms on which the theorem is based are open to question.

My philosophy was never deep and is now also rusty, but I seem to recollect Kant having a pretty good rebuttal to ontological proofs, by using an exactly similar theorem to prove that a nice chunk of cash in his pocket necessarily existed. Alas, Kant's pocket was empty. It's never worked for me, either.

[_ClarkGoble]

My philosophy was never deep and is now also rusty, but I seem to recollect Kant having a pretty good rebuttal to ontological proofs, by using an exactly similar theorem to prove that a nice chunk of cash in his pocket necessarily existed. Alas, Kant's pocket was empty. It's never worked for me, either.

Kant's argument is that existence isn't a predicate. That is you can't treat being as if it were just an other property like redness. However there are various forms of the argument. As I said Plantinga has an interesting modal argument that I think avoids Kant's critique. There are other forms. I rather like Marion's although you need a bit of background in phenomenology to follow it. http://bit.ly/2jMxekl

But yeah, you're right. Any of these arguments make lots of assumptions not everyone will agree with. Then there's the related question of whether the proven entity is the god of religion. That was Heidegger's critique with his comment about such things not being about a God before whom we can dance and sing.