I find this to be patently absurd. It is as if these atheists are defining truth in this manner in order to never have to consider a priori arguments for God’s existence. But the fact remains that math in particular is an extremely good example of a priori reasoning that is undeniably true. All one must do is look at some history.
Although they do not depict anything concrete in the observable realm, complex numbers are extremely important for the inner workings of our universe. I have once heard a mathematician joke, “If God exists, he prefers complex numbers over the reals, and the L2 norm over the L1”. The deeper you go into physics, the more prominent a role these “imaginary” numbers play. If the aforementioned atheists were correct, mathematicians should have discovered complex numbers only in response to advances made in physics. But nothing could be farther from the truth.
During the 15th and 16th century, finding methods to solve polynomial equations was all the rage. Italian mathematicians soon discovered that in order to find all the solutions to certain equations, you must first manipulate square roots of negative numbers. It soon became clear that these “imaginary” numbers, as Descartes called them, had properties all on their own. They were worthy of study in their own right. Tell me, oh evidentialist atheist, how did we get from the abstract practice of using square roots of negative numbers to find roots of polynomial equations, to the countless applications of complex analysis to applied and theoretical physics? To me, the story of complex analysis provides an excellent example of a priori reasoning.
There are even better examples of how mathematics has been developed before the truths they state about our universe were realized, but these examples involve deeper, more abstract math. Lie theory is a great example – its rise to importance in mathematics is due to its power in explaining relativity.
I’m hesitant to say this, as to not come off arrogant, but I believe that atheists who argue in this way just don’t fully understand the depth of theoretical mathematics. Many atheists, with their leanings towards science, view math through a physics perspective. It is only when you view physics through a math perspective do you realize, as physicist Eugene Wigner described, “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.”
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Even evolution, a poster child for the science vs. religion debate, has very little mathematics in it. Evolution boils down to a story which has a lot of confirming anecdotes. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with science done in this way, just that mathematics is not a good basis for all knowledge.
- everything is explainable by math
- everything is explainable by my math
I don't really know how religion could be passed genetically, but I am pretty sure that my strong beliefs and interest in religion stems from the environment I was raised in.
Reddit atheists sometimes will argue that truth can only come through science. That which is true equals that which has been observed/tested. Thus a priori arguments cannot produce truth. This is very convenient for them, as the only arguments for God's existence that hold any water happen to be a priori. But it is simply untrue that a priori arguments cannot provide truth statements. My example is mathematics. Things like complex numbers were never actually observed or tested in the real world, yet they have been quite useful in predicting and explaining the world around us. To quote wikipedia, "the mathematical structure of a physics theory often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions... this is not just a coincidence and therefore must reflect some larger and deeper truth about both mathematics and physics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_Effectiveness As a lover of both philosophy and religion, I wish r/debateanatheist and r/debatereligion were more civil and intellectual. sigh
- As a lover of both philosophy and religion, I wish r/debateanatheist and r/debatereligion were more civil and intellectual. sigh
I don't know if /r/theagora is still active but they used to have some interesting and extremely deep conversations there. Most went right over my head but you might like it.
Math is a great philosophical example of the difference between the two, because of the great debate about whether we discover math principles (a priori) or whether we invent them (a posteriori). Its a good and worthy philosophical debate, but I think it has very little to do with whether God(s) exists.
- “If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting”
stumbled upon this tonight and thought you'd get a laugh from it too. Is it too low brow to have a "favorite jack handy" post on hubski?