Religion held to higher standard than Math
- Thread starter Turduckin
- Start date
umm, that sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't understand math at all.
And maybe while I'm at it, I should get to the point...
Math is a systematic method of thought, and it still has contradictions. No one in their right mind would discount the uses of non-euclidian geometries, and yet just because you change a postulate and rework the logic doesn't mean you will get a useful geometry - only a valid one. The same with taking the square root of a number. Just because a number behaves a certain way doesn't mean it's application is sensible in the physical world.
Religion is not a rigorous, systematic method of thought. It is a collection of stories written to teach something about a complex, chaotic system - human behavior. Yes it has contradictions - but we can accept within limits contradictions and incompleteness in formal rational systems. How can we use those same arguments to dismiss something that isn't even a rigorous, formal system?
I only sound anti religious because of the recent spawning of religious fundie idiots here.
I would be among the first to admit that religion was crucial to the development of the human race, that it is a good way to meet good people, and that it is a convenient package of morality that you can just accept. Striking out on your own and making moral rules for yourself is fine, but kinda like getting a Linux build. You only invest such time and effort if you want to. On the other hand, MS XP is sure, inelegant to the "expert"
eye, but it is convenient and filled with enough goodies for the "average" (rolls eyes again) user.
Religion has the added benefit of being able to find lots of people on the same path, and it is easier to find fellow people who will help you and guide you when you get lost. There's a ton of resource, and easy resource, for messups on MS XP. You have to dig for a fucking week to find anything relevant to your particular system with a Linux build.
I would be among the first to admit that religion was crucial to the development of the human race, that it is a good way to meet good people, and that it is a convenient package of morality that you can just accept. Striking out on your own and making moral rules for yourself is fine, but kinda like getting a Linux build. You only invest such time and effort if you want to. On the other hand, MS XP is sure, inelegant to the "expert"
eye, but it is convenient and filled with enough goodies for the "average" (rolls eyes again) user. Religion has the added benefit of being able to find lots of people on the same path, and it is easier to find fellow people who will help you and guide you when you get lost. There's a ton of resource, and easy resource, for messups on MS XP. You have to dig for a fucking week to find anything relevant to your particular system with a Linux build.
Wonderful analogy there and worth some thought.
I think we might even be able to take it a level deeper. A mathematician would tell you that Mathematics does not make any assertions about anything other than itself. It is applied Mathematics wherein lies the danger of misuse. Might we be able to bring this analogy back towards religion; being an expression or investigation of ourselves and our world? And again, it is in its application that it can become dangerous? Applied to literally, it fails. Used in the wrong way and it becomes a danger to those it was meant to serve in the first place. And perhaps, there are manifold "geometries" of religion that are truthful investigations in their own right? Even that of irreligious forms.
~Raithere
Religion vs. Math
Two theories of mathematics? Scary.
How many religions are there?
Religion is constitutionally protected and tax-exempt in this country. I'd say that religion has it pretty damn good.
(Edit: Are you sure that topic citation isn't a "Letter to the Editor" of The Onion?)
thanx,
Tiassa
Two theories of mathematics? Scary.
How many religions are there?
Religion is constitutionally protected and tax-exempt in this country. I'd say that religion has it pretty damn good.
(Edit: Are you sure that topic citation isn't a "Letter to the Editor" of The Onion?)
thanx,
Tiassa
Math and religion are alike because:
The basic concepts can not be proven in either, but if you believe in them they both work.
Lately I am having trouble with the number 2. If everything is unique how can there be 2. I know those people at Sesame Street, who have been sponsering "2" all these years, won't be happy with me; but I just don't believe in 2 any more.
The basic concepts can not be proven in either, but if you believe in them they both work.
Lately I am having trouble with the number 2. If everything is unique how can there be 2. I know those people at Sesame Street, who have been sponsering "2" all these years, won't be happy with me; but I just don't believe in 2 any more.
two is easy. now three, that's the kicker
Proof that 1+1=2
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.