For (kind-of) Atheists

[RJT]

I was reading DS’s “ Four Kinds of Atheists” post and the talk of religion being invented seem to be a frequent theme. This led me to think about the familiar question, “Was Mathematics invented or discovered?”

Generally, folk seem to have no problem when the discussion ends with the side that concludes Mathematics was invented. Yet, when we talk about Religion being invented (doesn’t matter whether is was invented or discovered for my point here) folk seem to assume “therefore it must be bogus” as the automatically logical deduction. It seems to me that whether Religion was invented or discovered has no baring on its validity (invalidity).

RJT

[theweatherman]

Math is simply a way to describe our world. It most certainly is invented. I could reinvent the entire mathematical system but instead of 1+1=2, 1+1=4. I feel that religious types see their religion as the only way it could ever work, and such it is easy to view as bogus. Mathematicians accept that their science is relative.

[ QUOTE ]
Math is simply a way to describe our world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't, not solely. A portion of mathematics can be used to describe the world, but most of it has no application.

[ QUOTE ]
It most certainly is invented. I could reinvent the entire mathematical system but instead of 1+1=2, 1+1=4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exercise: work out what the implications of asserting that 1+1=4 are. With standard interpretations, this is a contradiction and you can use it to prove anything. It is possible to make sense of this (addition modulo 2), but you have changed the meanings of the terms (you must involve equivalence classes).

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that religious types see their religion as the only way it could ever work, and such it is easy to view as bogus. Mathematicians accept that their science is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, mathematicians usually think they are discovering unchangable, necessary truths, either because they believe that mathematics has a timeless existence of its own (Platonism), that mathematics consists essentially only of formal derivations from axioms (formalism), or because mathematics is ultimately grounded by conceptual mechanisms that are universal for all humans.

[Lestat]

Do you find a problem with the fact that one stick equals one stick no matter which mathematical model you adhere to? Yet one god equals different gods depending on which religious religious belief is employed?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you find a problem with the fact that one stick equals one stick no matter which mathematical model you adhere to? Yet one god equals different gods depending on which religious religious belief is employed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so then one would proceed to investigate the “mathematics” of the religions in question. This happens all the time in science when different new theories emerge, no? We don’t stop and say there are opposing views so therefore science must be bogus. We study the new concept until we learn which is the correct theory.

All I am saying is that we cannot deduce anything simply given the assumption that Religion was invented. That thinking stops short. Follow up questions such as these are certainly valid and can lead to different conclusion/opinions. But, to those who stop at “Religion was invented” are being intellectually dishonest.*

*My first ever “intellectually dishonest” post. Do I get some type of a symbol in my profile now? I’ve held out longer than some. (Probably I am merely no longer master of my domain. Such finality. I am feeling a bit depressed at the thought.)

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> *My first ever “intellectually dishonest” post. Do I get some type of a symbol in my profile now? </font>

lol-

I see what you're saying, but the one thing that steers me away from this view is that math would still exist whether man had been around to invent it or not. If both math and religion were never invented, math would still exist. The earth would still have 1 moon and not 2. Can the same be said for religion? If religion had never been discovered would it's very nature lend itself to existence? I say no. But I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts if you could argue that religion could exist without discovery or invention.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
math would still exist whether man had been around to invent it or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true. Euclid laid down the axioms for mathematics from which every theorem was built. Logic would still exist if this had never been done, but math as we think of it would not. Math is created from logic, in the same way as say, a machine is created from its parts. If the machine had never been invented, its parts would still exist, but you can't really say the machine exists. Similarly, if the most basic mathematical axioms had never been stated, the logic from which math can be built would be present, but you can't really say the math exists.

[Lestat]

You could easily be right. I am the WRONG person to be discussing math! -lol

However, I maintain that however you conceptualize it, 1 moon equals 1 moon and not 3 or 4 moons. Whether the numbers 1 through 4 existed or not. With or without man, a moon either exists or it does not. Can the same be said for God and/or religion with or without man?

[RJT]

Does my post above (below) to hmpoker make clearer what I am thinking? If not, I can expand on it.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]

I see what you're saying, but the one thing that steers me away from this view is that math would still exist whether man had been around to invent it or not. If both math and religion were never invented, math would still exist. The earth would still have 1 moon and not 2. Can the same be said for religion? If religion had never been discovered would it's very nature lend itself to existence? I say no. But I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts if you could argue that religion could exist without discovery or invention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think what you are saying is that math would exist without people, but rather that objective facts that math describes would still hold. (So 1 moon plus 1 moon would still be 2 moons. But this is not a mathematical fact, anymore than 2 + 1 = 1 is a mathematical fact because 2 hydrogren atoms plus 1 oxygen atom produces 1 water molecule. Of course, the laws of addition don't apply in the real world unless we are adding "likes", which is why your first example is fine. It's a physical law that we can add "likes" and what we get satisfies the axioms of addition.)

Without people, religion would not exist, but it's entirely possible for God to exist objectively without people. Presumably if God does exist and humans become extinct, God will continue to exist.

So I don't see the distinction you are trying to get at. Math depends on human choices (what axiomatic systems we study), but physical laws presumably hold without human existence. Religion depends on human choices (what people believe about God), but the existence of an entity having the properties commonly used to define God is presumably possible without human existence.