Though I'll answer your comment more detailed in an email, let me write some few words here:
The thing is not if we should accept ethics or not. This is the easy question which I answer with "yes". The hard question is: Who can prove some given ethical system as "good", or at least better than another different ethical sytsem? Is such a proof possible at all? And the answer here is: It looks as the question couldn't be answered at all. But exactly this is what Goedels theorem proves: Truth is stronger than the proof of the truth. (!) Which in its essence says nothing more than that we sometimes have a kind of "built-in truth recognizer". But remember: Most of which we intuitively thought it was true, proved to be... wrong! ;-)
The "feeling" about something can mislead us simply due to long time suggestive living. In this case, any christ would be a moslem if born and grew up in some moslem country.
And to your question about the "percentage" of atheists - to which I count myself - well, it might have to do with... fear! Perhaps it is not so easy as it seems to be, to throw away all hopes about some life after this one. Perhaps also, we just sit in some underdeveloped state, that has the benefit of securing exactly that set of ethical rules, which are *not* proovable, i.e. "God said that this is good or bad". But the real value of these rules will be brighter than the light of 1000 suns, when we see that it was *we* that somehow knew about ethical rules. This is a reason to love all my brothers and sisters on this world: They have the ability to do good, without the need to prove it. Let's use this ability without the need for universal cops.
And hey, my viking maid, thank you for the questions, that lead to new questions, that lead to new questions - ..... preventing my mind from knowing the ultimate truth, but also from... drying out - which seems to be the greatest danger of the two ;-)
Dear Nick I don´t fool myself by thinking that love and good ethics are as universal as we take for granted. In order to be social beings and living with each other something like murder and stealing from other people should be commonly accepted by all as behaving against the common moral codex of society. Nevertheless some kinds of stealing are regarded with mild eyes, there exists the death penalty many places all over the world where not one man but an entire state can kill a person legally as an official revenge and therefore place themselves in an almighty position. Is that good ethics?? Some places it´s regarded as good ethics and a question of honour to kill one´s sister if she´s been raped, in my society we protect handicapped people but in some countris they kill handicapped people etc. Ethics do change a lot, so the only right word to use is respect- respect for each other and discussion if we feel that people are being mistreated. Concerning religion I do belive that the fantastic about faith is the ability to think/feel/sense/seek for all all that is not logical - to take the unlogical step out in something that none of us can comprehend - but we feel it. Also I will turn the question around: Why is there atheists in the world, when the biggest procentage of the population of the world are religious and have been since the stoneage? Why is there a small population of non-believers that seem to lock out the other human irrational senses/feelings? Did the area of rationalism make some people afraid and embarrassed to go further than provable knowledge? Just some thoughts:-) I like your twisted mind and hope that mine agree with you too:-))) Take care, Annemette
The practical consequence of the incompletness theorem for religion would be something like:
Instead of falling down in front of some "God", instead of singing songs of glory for that "supreme power", let's do the opposite:
I give a call to my Zeus, Annemette to her Thor, and Mohammed to his Allah, and then we meet at some old nice Café for a couple of whiskys and a good game of backgammon, laughing at each other's imperfectness and above all at the own imperfectness! Zeus had always much fun doing this. What about Thor and Allah? (I guess... the same! haha! ;-))
Well, my questions are much more likely to be "thorough" than my thoughts are ;-)
But let me insert a small message for all the religious fanatics, including Christs, Moslems, or any other relicts ;-)
Do we think that there can be something as perfect and as almighty as the universal cop we name God, Allah, Manitu, whatsoever? I would really be glad then to prove you here and now the opposite using the same language and definitions and axioms of any religious system, that it will either contradict itself or it will be not almighty. And this, my dear fanatics, is not some kind of "Nick trick" - no! It is simple clear mathematics, the very purest language and the highest form of spiritual activity that we can have, since it is the only activity that *proves* statements about... itself (!), whereas any belief and religion just *states* some undefinable mysteries that every believer has to *believe* in order to go further and examine consequences, etc. So I guess mathematics is much much much more than trigonometric equations and integrals, what? ;-)
But unfortunately, Annemette, even your "system" of love and good ethics will be in its essence either full of contradictions (imperfect) of will not have the power to anwser all questions that it is able to state (incomplete). To puzzle you a little bit, if we accept love and good ethics for *everybody*, what should we do with individuals that negate the system of love and good ethics? The question is much heavier than it seems ;-) It uses the stated principle of respect to ask about recpect for some idea that doesn't respect.. respect itself!!! And here is the flaw, here comes Goedel the great!
At the end the only thing that we can really be sure of is: The very logic that leads us to any kind of conclusions, be them religious, mathematical, whatsoever, *will* also lead us to contradiction or to imperfectness. I, for myself, don't find imperfectness or contradiction such a terrible thing anymore. But I guess that any religion is clutching at staws trying to prevent its own crash and even more! The final arriving of the dawn of that day, when we all get it in our minds:
We are all the same imperfect, contradictional minds that for some reason have to share the limited space and time of this earth. Let's use it accepting that we can't find perfectness and consistency in us and in any other person, religion, philosophy whatsoever.
Dear Mary Yes, it´s always provocative talking about faith and religion because people have some many thoughts and feelings involved. Still I think it´s necessary expressing and exchanging views in order to prevent religion becoming "rigid". I´m glad you like this one:-) Take care, Annemette
Dear Nick Thank you for your thorough questions and thoughts:-) Humans will be humans, but the settings and conditions change over time. When posting this image I came to think of the fanatics within all religions that try to bring us in a kind of religious captivity. They regard themselves as very holy beings that have a high authority, and they are extremely intolerant not being capable of accepting and respecting how other people live. We can´t and should not feel forced to live and act like they did 2000 or 1500 years ago. Love and good ethics, respect and responsibility for all living creatures and Earth should be what we worked and prayed for instead of trying to control other people´s thoughts and actions. It´s a difficult subject however with many emotions and layers involved, and I have to look up "flaw" as I don´t know the meaning of it! Goodnight for now:-) Annemette
Another very striking (and thought provoking!) image Annemette. So totally brilliant idea! And so well done- the colours, effects and combinations. And to see words- just wonderful.
Very very creative usage of the simplest means, Annemette. Especially the almost undefinable changes of the colors of back to foreground and vice versa, that nonetheless keep the text hovering over the paper, giving it thus an extra portion of weight, just like enhancing not on the matter (paper and ink) but on the thoughts and ideas carried by the matter.
And since it is a very good abstract also, I dare going into the world of thoughts again.
The inverse question to your statement about stagnation of political social and religious conditions would be: Could it be that those conditions were able to survive not despite but because of the fact that they are indeed good? (Mathematicians *have* to post such unexpected questions ;-))
On the other hand, having all the possibilities to concentrate on the theoretical ideals upon which all the above conditions are based, one could assume that it should be expectable to discover their flaws. Apparently this doesnt happen on a wide scale. Is it fear in front of some assumed universal cop? (Named "God" most of the time?) Is it the hidden wish to have human made law and order? Or is it perhaps much deeper? Is perhaps thinking itself inevitably connected to... flaws?
Some times beauty do not need complications, this is simple yet very powerful with tis beauty and ,amazing with its light and details, , I found this image so impresive and so pleasant to view, wishing you all of the best my friend.
0 
{K:127263} 9/7/2006
