Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was a brilliant logician/mathemetician, no question about it. But unless I was a mathematics graduate student, engineer or professor (which I'm not), I can't see myself being absorbed in his writings. My occupation, hobbies, personal interests, none of these are related to the field of mathematics. I nevertheless understand logic and how to use it. Logic is basically the rules for clear reasoning. I appreciate Gödel's contributions in the area of logic. I can follow a logical argument and can recognize a number of logical fallacies. My fundamental interests however are mainly directed toward getting myself to heaven (i.e., eternal life with God) and helping my family (and as many other people as I can) to get there too.
Some people (of self-described atheist, agnostic or pagan persuasion) have recently posted comments on other blogs (e.g., bloghogger) contrasting Gödel with Thomas Aquinas, saying "I'd take Gödel over Aquinas any day." True, they both deal in "proofs," but their subject matter is of an entirely different order. It's like comparing apples with oranges (or apples with angels). Is that logical? I can understand someone preferring Gödel's theorems and proofs over Aquinas'. The objects of Gödel's proofs (impersonal propositions and equations) make no claims on our lives as persons. They don't tell us how we are to behave. However the object of Aquinas' proofs (God) certainly does make such claims, claims that require a committed response on our part. We can choose to avoid this commitment (in this life), but it becomes unavoidable in the afterlife. (For now, I have no intention to attempt to "prove" that there is an afterlife. Let's save that for another time, shall we?)
Unfortunately, the place where we will be "committed" in eternity must be freely decided (by us) in the time we have on earth. Those people who avoid making the choice in this life (i.e., those who choose not to commit themselves to the love of God), ipso facto choose eternity without Him. That's what Christians mean by "hell"--eternity without God. God does not force Himself on us, requiring us to choose Him instead, and these are our only alternatives: God or no-God.
Of course, God cannot be "proven" logically (in a mathematical sense). He cannot be reduced to an equation, nor is He an experiment that can be viewed under a microscope. He is in no way material and cannot be analyzed by material creatures throught material means. Since He is pure spirit, in order to know Him you have to accept His invitation and open yourself up to Him spiritually.
It should be equally obvious that God's mercy and action are beyond any of us to observe, much less understand. That's why the Church is competent to declare someone to be in heaven with God, but never pronounces that anyone is in hell. Not Judas, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, no one. And Christians must always resist the temptation to presume to judge the condition or status of any other soul but our own. But this in no way exempts us from the responsibility (or commission) to preach the gospel to every creature (always with our actions, sometimes with our words).
Gödel no doubt said many brilliant things about how a logical argument is technically constructed, but that, by itself, won't help me get to heaven. I feel my time would be better spent in other pursuits.
No comments:
Post a Comment