Inherently Incomplete

It has now been proved by rational arguments that the world of existence is in the utmost need of an educator, and that its education must be achieved by divine power. There is no doubt that this holy power is revelation, and that the world must be educated through this power which is above human power.

            (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 11)

This series of posts are attempting to bring together insights from science and religion to show how they ultimately point to the same higher truth.  Last post presented the thesis that Godel’s proof provides a logical foundation from which to argue the inherent incompleteness of all formal systems of thought.  There is something within every formal system that is not “of itself’ but is the representation of a higher entity in the system.  Paradoxically, this something else is what makes the system a system, for it stands in opposition to it.  Consistency is not within any system, but only as part of a richer system, which is also only fully consistent within yet another, higher system.  Yet consistency is essential, especially in thought.  For, once one accepts a logical contradiction, one can prove anything, and that is the end of rational thought.  The key point of this concerns self-referencing statements which cannot be proved within any formal system of thought. 

So, what possible conclusions and implications can be drawn from Godel’s work in support of the lead quote above?

The first conclusion we can draw is something like this: The whole is complete, consistent and perfect by itself.  Any part of that whole, by itself, is not complete or perfect, though it may be consistent in itself.  But its consistency cannot be proved or known by itself.  It can only be known as it is part of the whole. 

An implication of this conclusion is that: many seem to think that the humanity is a kind self-enclosed, self-referencing system, sufficient unto itself, with no higher authority to appeal to.  This is a modern-day hubris described by sociologist Daniel Bell as the belief that ‘I come out of myself.”  But in thinking this way we sacrifice a sense of completeness and when a creative advance is required, for challenges always occur, we often prove inadequate and become lost.  We get away from our real nature when we try to define ourselves, as the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel shows (Book of Genesis 10:10), for we have no objective standpoint from which to do this.  Hence in all cases self-referring becomes self-subverting.  How?

Because humanity is not a self-contained system, the truth or falsity of our self-referential statements—i.e. statements we make about our essential nature—are often unprovable, remaining purely matters of belief.  However, in matters of belief, such as fundamental moral principles or interpretations of reality, the process of knowing their truth is highly problematic, because they cannot be proved logically or rationally in a way that can not be subverted by a logical or rational proof of a belief that is contrary.  Moral intuitions are highly subjective and hard to generalize to others, and interpretations of reality are almost as many as people.  Too, some problems seem intractable. 

Human thought can be consistent when formalized, as in a syllogism.  Consistency is the basis of rational thought.  But even wrong ideas and interpretations can be grounded on rational assumptions and “proved” using logical arguments.  Hence sound logic and consistent rational thought do not, by themselves, enable us to avoid dangers and pitfalls, like racism, sexism, and all those other isms that divide humanity and which help create a toxic moral and intellectual environment.  We are not the final arbiter of most matters of conscience and reason, and human thought should not be closed upon itself, no matter how rational and firmly based upon “reason.”  Rather, we, each individual and all humanity, are open systems, having access to richer thought than human because the Manifestation and His Words can teach us what is right and wrong about our self-understanding.  He makes humanity complete.  His Revelation completes human thought.  He and His Message bring forth from us powers and capacities which we can not bring forth from ourselves.

 Human thought, then, is inherently incomplete and must appeal to higher thought to advance beyond the conundrums that thought brings forth in its movement over problems.  This is what Einstein meant when he remarked that problems can’t be solved using the level of thought that generated them.  Some believe that humanity’s creative powers will bring forth those insights, inspirations and creative leaps that solve the problems. That is true for many problems.  But this is still to keep human thought within the bounds of human thought, and, as I have argued, human thinking is inherently incomplete and inconsistent.  So some problems may be forever beyond our ability to solve using only our own thinking. 

Baha’is believe that we can turn to the richer thought of divine Revelation to solve our problems.  But even here the same cautions about completeness and inconsistency hold.  There are no absolutes, even within Revelation.  I mean that, as Shoghi Effendi stated: “The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh ... is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society.” (The Promised Day is Come: Preface)

The messages of the great Spiritual Luminaries are the fundamental truths of the human reality, the basis of all moral intuitions, and the most complete and accurate interpretation of Reality.  But, as Shoghi Effendi statement points out, each divine Message is neither final nor complete in Itself, but must be completed by another and more comprehensive Message to come after It. Together They are the unfoldment in more complete and complex form of a single divine Impulse.  The most recent Message is the most comprehensive and complete. It represents not the whole of Reality, for that can never be communicated, but is, rather, reality as a whole, adequate and comprehensive, complete and perfect, for its time, but not for all time.  But these Divine Revelations are the source of human development, of new sciences and of new stages and kinds of civilization.  I will discuss some of these implications in the next post.