In a recent conversation with a friend, I was arguing that the perception of the world according to the laws of math/science/physics was more reliable than a perception of the world as spiritual/divine.
She argued that since the laws of math and science fail to answer every question, it cannot be judged more reliable than any other paradigm. How, she asked, is math/physics any more reliable (as a way of explaining the existence and mechanics of the universe) than religion, since neither explanation is completely satisfying?
And I argued that whereas religion was invented and then applied to the world, math was discovered and then used, and perfected with time.
But in our conversation I was unable to logically prove my point. My question is: Is there a way to prove the point that math is different from religion because it was discovered, rather than invented? Or do I need to reword it somehow to make it more logically sound?
(I’m worried I’m not articulating well… if this question is ambiguous, let me know and I’ll try my best to clarify.)