Religion and Science unification

Speaking for God has been part of religion for many years. However, science has come in the past few years to question that role or even our very ability to speak about God in general. My goal is to show that dogmatism, under any form, is wrong. And even though dogmatism had for a long time been associated with ill-intentioned religion, nowadays science has replaced religion in the throne of doctrinaire thinking. The point of the paper is to illustrate that one-way thinking is never correct – most of the times a combination of science and religion, measurements and theoretical thinking, logic and intuition, is required to draw a conclusion about the most important philosophical questions. The paper establishes that exact sciences can be very useful, but they also have limits. The Religion-vs-Science problem is a pseudo-problem; logic and evidence can easily be used to defend theistic views. Both science and religion use common tools and methods and can be unified in a new way of thinking. This paper sets the foundations on how this can be achieved. The conclusion is that science and religion both complete our knowledge for the world, our understanding of humans and our purpose in life. Speaking about God is part of science as well as of religion. Only when we think of God as theologians and as scientists at the same time can we fully reach Him

Linguistic Knowledge of Reality: A Metaphysical Impossibility?

Reality contains information (significant) that becomes significances in the mind of the observer. Language is the human instrument to understand reality. But is it possible to attain this reality? Is there an absolute reality, as certain philosophical schools tell us? The reality that we perceive, is it just a fragmented reality of which we are part? The work that the authors present is an attempt to address this question from an epistemological, linguistic and logical-mathematical point of view

Causal interpretation of Gödel's ontological proof

Gödel's ontological argument is related to Gödel's view that causality is the fundamental concept in philosophy. This explicit philosophical intention is developed in the form of an onto-theological Gödelian system based on justification logic. An essentially richer language, so extended, offers the possibility to express new philosophical content. In particular, theorems on the existence of a universal cause on a causal "slingshot" are formulated

Do Your Thoughts Matter? Because They Are Made Of Matter? An Exploration On The Mind Body Problem Through The Lenses Of Philosophy, Neuropsychology, and Quantum Physics

In the late 21th century, the concept of Quantum Consciousness arose, joining theories and concepts from the disciplines of Philosophy, Neuropsychology, and Quantum Physics. The Preface of Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Henry P. Stapp. 1993) states, “Nature appears to be composed of two completely different kinds of things; rock-like things and idea-like things. The first is epitomized by an enduring rock, the second by a fleeting thought. A rock can be experienced by many of us together, while a thought seems to be long to one of us alone” (Stapp, 1993 p. vii). Stapp refers to the mind-body problem, not as a problem, but as a connection; the mind-body connection. Descartes believed the mind and body could be separate and act separately. Stapp embellishes Descartes philosophy of “I think, therefore I am” through Quantum Physics by connecting the mind to the body; calling it the mind-body connection. Stapp states that nature is composed of two different things, rock-like things and idea-like things. I believe that rock-like things and idea-like things do not differ, but are one and the same. This paper explores the philosophies of Descartes, the contents of a thought and the ways in which neuropsychology and Quantum Physics help illuminate the question: do thoughts contain matter

Handbook of the First World Congress on Logic and Religion

This is the handbook of abstracts of the 1st World Congress on Logic and Religion, which took place in João Pessoa, Brazil, April 01-05, 2015

The reasonable effectiveness of Mathematics and its Cognitive roots 1

“At the beginning, Nature set up matters its own way and, later, it constructed human intelligence in such a way that [this intelligence] could understand it” [Galileo Galilei, 1632 (Opere, p. 298)]. “The applicability of our science [mathematics] seems then as a symptom of its rooting, not as a measure of its value. Mathematics, as a tree which freely develops his top, draws its strength by the thousands roots in a ground of intuitions of real representations; it would be disastrous to cut them off, in view of a short-sided utilitarism, or to uproot them from the ground from which they rose ” [H. Weyl, 1910]. Summary. Mathematics stems out from our ways of making the world intelligible by its peculiar conceptual stability and unity; we invented it and used it to single out key regularities of space and language. This is exemplified and summarised below in references to the main foundational approaches to Mathematics, as proposed in the last 150 years. Its unity is also stressed: in this paper, Mathematics is viewed as a "three dimensiona

Gödel mathematics versus Hilbert mathematics. I. The Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: axiom or theorem?

The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part