Religion

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by Kilraven *

Mathematics is a science. “2+2=4” is a fact. Therefore, my earlier usage, while perhaps a bit sloppy and colloquial, is not completely inaccurate. On the other hand, spending FIVE FREAKING PARAGRAPHS lambasting me on that usage, while still arriving at the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION that I had intended, is being anal-retentive in the extreme. Lighten up, for crying out loud!

**

Originally posted by Kilraven *
**
And since mathematics is a science, it is thus a scientific fact. You want to play word games, go somewhere else.*

No, mathematics is not a science, and you have completely missed my points.

A science is a process of reasoning to create theories from observed facts about the natural world. The theories that it creates are open to question.

Mathematics is logic built on sheer definition, which is not derived from the natural world, and is completely abstract. Since mathematics are abstraction, they are not derived from observation of the natural world, and so its conclusions are not open to refutation by observed facts. Therefore mathematics is not a natural science.

Strange… I’ve seen that experiment done myself. On Sesame Street. Granted, the experiment was demonstrative rather than inquisitive, but there it is. Perhaps you missed it.

Exactly. Natural science is based on the results of inquisitive experiments, not demonstrative. The reason we know that 2+2=4 is not due to the experiments you describe. It is due to sheer logic, which is not the same thing as natural reason about the observed universe.

I find that to be a rather narrow definition of “science”. For starters, some disciplines that are generally regarded as Sciences fail that definition. Astronomy, for one. Mathematics, for another.

How is astronomy not a process of applying reason to observed facts about the natural world?

In other words, you’re saying that some of the scientific facts we do have based on experimentation just might someday turn out to be wrong? A chemical reaction that mixes Chemical A and Chemical B to produce Chemical C might someday produce Chemical D instead? Give me a break.
Scientific experiments also serve to explain, which your definition appears to leave little room for.

That Chem A mixed with Chem B produces Chem C is an observed fact, and is open to question only insofar as the accuracy of the observations is. A theory is what explains why this happens, which is always open to question and refutation by the observation of other facts.

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before you respond to what you assumed they said. Thank you.

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by Speaker for the Dead *
**Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t Wiccan like witchcraft? Or is that just a rumour? **

Getting back…

Witchcraft and Wicca are often used interchangeably in the neo-Pagan community these days, but the term Wicca more precisely means a non-dogmatic religion founded in the 1800s and based on pre-Christian European religious traditions, believing (generally speaking) in the immanence and omniessence of the Goddess and God, the force of karma and the power of magick.

[Kilraven]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *

No, mathematics is not a science, and you have completely missed my points.

I’m sure the Mathematics Department at the University
of Alberta, which is in the Faculty of Science, would
disagree with that assessment.

I haven’t missed your points – I simply don’t agree with them, specifically your narrow defintion of “science”.

In any case, this is now so way off-topic that is serves no useful purpose. You want to spend time and energy nit-picking on the usage of one word, that’s your problem. I am no longer interested in anything you may have to add.

[Kilraven]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before you respond to what you assumed they said. Thank you. **

Tell me something – are you this much of an asshole in real life?

[Kilraven]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *

No, mathematics is not a science, and you have completely missed my points.

From the Miriam-Webster College Dictionary, online
version:

mathematics
Main Entry: math·e·mat·ics
Pronunciation: "math-'ma-tiks, "ma-th&-
Function: noun plural but usually singular in construction
Date: 1581
1 : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations
2 : a branch of, operation in, or use of mathematics <the mathematics of physical chemistry>
From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (online):
Mathematics
Math`e*mat"ics (?), n. [F. mathématiques, pl., L. mathematica, sing., Gr. (sc. ) science. See Mathematic, and -ics.] That science, or class of sciences, which treats of the exact relations existing between quantities or magnitudes, and of the methods by which, in accordance with these relations, quantities sought are deducible from other quantities known or supposed; the science of spatial and quantitative relations. &hand; Mathematics embraces three departments, namely: 1. Arithmetic. 2. Geometry, including Trigonometry and Conic Sections. 3. Analysis, in which letters are used, including Algebra, Analytical Geometry, and Calculus. Each of these divisions is divided into pure or abstract, which considers magnitude or quantity abstractly, without relation to matter; and mixed or applied, which treats of magnitude as subsisting in material bodies, and is consequently interwoven with physical considerations.
From the Cambridge Dictionary of American English (online):

mathematics, short form math noun
the science of numbers, forms, amounts, and their relationships

From WordNet:

mathematics
n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: math, maths]

Wow. Four dictionaries all call Mathematics a science. You may want to write to the editors of these dictionaries informing them of their grevious error.

Until then… get lost.

[matt_mcl]

Science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiments with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. - Canadian Oxford Dictionary

Dictionary: Opinion presented as truth in alphabetical order. - John Ralston Saul, The Doubter’s Companion

If mathematics is a science, it is a very odd one indeed, considering that it deals only with itself. We invented mathematics in order to deal with mathematics. There was gravity before we invented the theory of gravity, but there were no numbers before we invented number theory.

Now do you get what I’m driving at? There is no ultimate truth of mathematics to which our human equations strive and ultimately fail. Mathematics is defined by its own results, which is not true for something like physics.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why you don’t see the difference between something that’s based on observable phenomena and a purely logical system that encompasses and defines itself.

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by Kilraven *
**

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before you respond to what you assumed they said. Thank you. **

Tell me something – are you this much of an asshole in real life?

**

I wasn’t aware that asking someone nicely to do something easy was considered assholistic behaviour, but thank you for informing me that it is. I will endeavour not to ask you so to strain yourself in the future.

[nashiitashii]

Raised Lutheran while attending parochial school for 10 years. Made me realize Christianity is not a religion for me and no one can convince me of otherwise.

I’m now Agnostic and will continue to be so unless I find a religion that agrees exactly with what I value in how I conduct myself and the world around me should.

And please stop with the stupid bickering over the math analogy. If he wants to believe that his is the only way, let him. Just don’t ever come knocking on my door expecting me to convert.

[MrMcPlad]

*Originally posted by Kilraven *

As far as I am concerned, my beliefs represent the truth as I am capable of understanding it.

So, you’re saying that as far as you are able to understand, 2+2=4.5 Your truth may be close to absolute truth, but it is not exactly the same.

But I don’t go around knocking on other people’s doors to convince them of it. As I said before, my view is that other people can believe whatever they want to believe as long as they extend me the same courtesy.

Are you familiar with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave? http://www.nursing.gr/theory/allegory.html Try this link if you’re not. It basically explains how people want to live alone in their fantasy worlds, rather than facing the truth.

Coming around and knocking on my door to tell me about what they perceive as the truth is a violation of that courtesy. I find such behavior to be intrusive and offensive. My response is to shut the door without comment, mostly because it’s less hostile than some of the alternatives (eg, yelling and/or swearing at them THEN closing the door, as I’ve heard my next-door neighbour do).

I would heartily agree if their message was false or not worth hearing. However, suppose their message could lead you to eternal life and a joyous afterlife…would you let them in your house then? Of course! But how will you know if they are telling the absolute truth, and not their “best understanding,” or “a close approximation?” I tell you that you will feel it inside as a warm feeling. It is the Holy Spirit.

[Kilraven]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**
Now do you get what I’m driving at? There is no ultimate truth of mathematics to which our human equations strive and ultimately fail. Mathematics is defined by its own results, which is not true for something like physics.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why you don’t see the difference between something that’s based on observable phenomena and a purely logical system that encompasses and defines itself. **

I do see the difference. But I am willing to allow both of them to appear under the umbrella of “science”. Apparently, so does everyone else, since ALL FOUR of the dictionaries I checked online define Mathematics as a science. You want to arbitrarily limit “science” to include only one of those two, go right ahead. Just be aware that your usage appears to be at odds with how it is generally defined. Your continued insistence on it despite my having found considerable evidence against your viewpoint only undermines your credibility.

(Side comment: one would have thought that on a message board under the topic “Religion”, the big conflict therein would be on the actual topic itself, not on the definition and usage of some other word… Strange, isn’t it?)

[Kilraven]

*Originally posted by MrMcPlad *
**

*Originally posted by Kilraven *

As far as I am concerned, my beliefs represent the truth as I am capable of understanding it.

So, you’re saying that as far as you are able to understand, 2+2=4.5 Your truth may be close to absolute truth, but it is not exactly the same.

Not at all. I am well aware that 2+2=4. My original point is, there is no way to PROVE, objectively and empirically, that your “truth” is the absolute truth.

Coming around and knocking on my door to tell me about what they perceive as the truth is a violation of that courtesy. I find such behavior to be intrusive and offensive. My response is to shut the door without comment, mostly because it’s less hostile than some of the alternatives (eg, yelling and/or swearing at them THEN closing the door, as I’ve heard my next-door neighbour do).

I would heartily agree if their message was false or not worth hearing.

I’ve heard their message before. As far as I am concerned, it is false and not worth hearing. Insisting that I hear it anyway is called “invasion of privacy”.

However, suppose their message could lead you to eternal life and a joyous afterlife…would you let them in your house then?

See above. I’ve already heard the message. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a fantasy story, and not a particularly good one to begin with.

BTW, I have several Mormon friends, all of whom know better than to try to convert me to their beliefs.

Of course! But how will you know if they are telling the absolute truth, and not their “best understanding,” or “a close approximation?” I tell you that you will feel it inside as a warm feeling. It is the Holy Spirit. **

Oh, please, do give me a break. I don’t believe in spirits, Holy or otherwise, save for those that I am able to purchase at my local liquor store.

Besides, eternal life is a concept that I find particularly attractive to begin with. I’d likely get bored after the first billion years or so.

I stand by my original statement. Door-to-door witnessing is an invasion of privacy, and is an obnoxious form of behaviour for which I have absolutely zero tolerance.

Incidentally, this is why I have a certain amount of antipathy towards Christianity in general: it is the only major religion that tells its adherents to convert the unbelievers en masse, a practice that has caused great sorrow in human history.

[Kilraven]

Besides, eternal life is a concept that I find particularly attractive to begin with. I’d likely get bored after the first billion years or so.

That’s what I get for rushing. My statement should read:

Besides, eternal life is not a concept that I find particularly attractive to begin with. I’d likely get bored after the first billion years or so.

[andygirl]

I’m a liberal Methodist. My church at home is very gay friendly. I distrust fundamentalism after a series of incidents with so-called “true believers.” No witnessing for andygirl…

[glee]

My parents took me to a Congregational church till I was about 14. The I asked my Sunday School teacher (a decent man) if there was any scientific proof of God. He said no, it was a matter of faith. I decided to live a sociable life (I respect ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’), but wait for proof of God. Nothing so far…

MrMcPlad - I understand that you want to tell everyone that they’re missing the point. But how do you know you’re right? Mathematics can be demonstrated to others - what proof has your church got?

Incidentally, what are the differences between all these branches of Christianity?

matt_mcl + Kilraven: sorry you fell out. I think ‘science’ covers both observation of systematic physical phenomena (physics, chemistry) and systematic and formulated knowledge (maths derived from axioms).

[tomndebb]

dpr:

“Christianity is a GREAT idea. It’s just a shame no-one’s ever tried it”

G.K. Chesterton:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

What’s Wrong With the World, pt 1, ch 5, 1910.
I too was raised Catholic and am now. . .
still Catholic!

I post often enough around here that my views toward other beliefs should be discernible. (Although, I have very recently developed a bit of antipathy toward the Mathematical Scientifician sect and their opponents.)

[MrMcPlad]

Let’s say that I could prove to you, either mathematically or scientifically (or maybe math is a science), that God exists and that Mormonism is true. Using this proof, would you convert? If not, then you would be damned (because you knew the truth, but refused it still). If you would convert, how would your belief in Mormonism compare to those who needed no proof, but relied on simple faith?

There is a reason God cannot be proven absolutely. Those who denied him would be damned, and there would be no need for faith.

[Siddhartha_Vicious]

Christian, with Buddhist leanings.

I was a philosophy major in College. Even though most of my friends soon used their philosophical education to justify their beliefs in the non-existence of God, I used it to further my own beliefs that their must be some entity out there. After all, the creation demands a creator.

And, if you really examine Christ’s teachings, he isn’t saying “down with homosexuality,” or “all other religions are false,” but rather “love everyone.” In fact (though I don’t know what passage it is), he says that the two greatest commandments are love God, and love your Neighbor.

I think that God wants you to believe whatever is right for you, whether it be Hindu, Mormon, Moslem, or whatever.

And I embrace Buddhism more as a way of life than a religion.

[Mac_Guffin]

I was raised a Missuri Synod Lutheren, and am now a solitary Wiccan, with taoist leanings. I have belonged to a couple wiccan groups, but they seem to have the same sort of problems as any organized religion.

Oh and I absolutly despise mathmatical arguements on a religious thread, tho most hard-core mathematicians treat math like it IS a religion.

[evilbeth]

L. Ron fu**in’ Hubbard, guys, knock off this math crap! Get your own thread!

Speaker for the Dead, matt_mcl pretty much answered the Wicca question. However, we have had several threads on the board about what Wicca is and what it isn’t. I invite you to please check some of them out–they are rather informative. I would answer here but I think this is a good thread and it has already been hijacked far enough by the Mathematical Semantics Gang.

[betenoir]

matt_mcl is absolutly and completly right in his characterization of mathematics and science, and I’m sure any mathematician, even one from the University of Alberta, would agree. Kilraven why don’t you ask them (ie give them the whole debate, not just “there’s this guy who says you aren’t a science, he’s wrong, right?”)

On the other hand, that part of the debate has not that much to do with Kilraven’s actual point to MrMcPlad. It holds for scientific AND logical proofs. (Mathematical proofs are logical, not scientific.)

Faith in God admitts to neither logical or scientific proof.God is way beyond comprehension. So, saying you can know God like you know 2+2=4 seems rather demeaning. Almost blasphemous.
Signed,
Anne the Agnostic