Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Alleged Divine Requirement of Math.

Is it just me or have apologetic arguments become more vague and confusing than ever before? I’ve been seeing the claim that atheism can’t account for the laws of logic and mathematics because they need a foundation in the divine. Upon asking the apologist why they think this is so, the responses vary. Most often they say something about logic and math working on faith because we can’t show why they work. In their minds, this makes atheists have faith in something thereby putting theists and atheists on equal ground. In their minds, it actually gives them a 1-up on atheists in that they can define a source for their faith...which just so happens to be what they have faith in, God--thus showing that their minds need more regular maintenance. This is where we can offer a tune-up.

Math works. I need no faith that math works, I can show that math works. This is evidential, which is right in the unfaithful’s wheelhouse. I don’t even know how to classify the argument that the apologist makes here. Asking why math works is like asking why are we here. It’s assuming a purpose that can only be prescribed by an outside agent--meaning it will only by compelling to those who already believe there is a god. In reality, there need not be a why.

If it’s not an argument of purpose, maybe it falls under the fine tuning umbrella. Are they saying that since the universe is comprehensible enough for us to discover math and logic, that God must have made it as such? If so, this can be dismissed as easily as other fine tuning arguments. We can only have a discussion about math and logic as we define them because they are meaningful; if they weren’t meaningful, we wouldn’t be having the discussion. It’s the anthropic principle at work. More than this, their line of reasoning is actually worse than the standard fine tuning argument of the universe. It’s at least conceivable that the universal constants that make life possible could be different yet aren’t, lending to the necessity of a designer or a multiverse or something to explain it. In the case of math and logic, I can’t see how anything could be fundamentally different. I don’t understand how can a concept like addition may be voided. Does the apologist really think a deity is needed for quantities to be countable? Seriously, what is the alternative? If things exist, said things can be counted. This gives us numbers which gives us math. Does this argument distill down to "why are there things?" If so, this brings us full circle to an assumed purpose.

These attempts to redefine faith as a property of atheism is simply an admission of their own weakness. Apologists, by definition, strive to defend their religious beliefs without relying on blind faith, but when it comes down to it, all their arguments are founded on just that blind faith. Apologists rationalize backwards in an effort to conceal their initial assumption, which is a passably convincing argument only to those indoctrinated to overlook the assumptions as such. I doubt apologetics were ever meant to convert the atheist, but rather to retain to lapsed church-goers. Who else would buy this shit?

10 comments:

  1. This argument is so stupid I don't really know how to defend against it. Perhaps that is why it is on the rise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christianity considers faith a prime virtue. But apologists who use this move actually devalues faith to a level of mundanity where it is not even interesting. Why is faith so special if everyone who uses maths needs faith?

    At the root of this move is their insecurity: they want the prestige of science, the certainty of maths, they need to KNOW and so look towards the natural sciences. To quote Darth Vader, their lack of faith is disturbing.

    Maths is useful because it is consistent. It allows us to map certain features of the universe onto an abstract system we create as a tool, manipulate them and test the result against reality. A mathematical proof is nothing more than a check against the rules of the abstract system you are using to ensure consistency.

    We have ten fingers which we use as children for pointing and gesturing. Over time, we developed a language for these: numbers 1 to 10. We found this useful so we developed a number system based upon our ten figures and continued to develop ever more complex mathematical systems. The laws of maths no more require a divine deity than the laws of football or the laws of accountancy. We made them up as part of how we think.

    As for logic, well I'm not convinced logic is anything more than glorified rules of grammar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extra points for Vader quotes!

      Apologists seem to want to legitimize their beliefs to the ever growing rational community, but they can't seem to pull that off without discarding most their beliefs. Many think faith is needed for heaven, so if they ever managed to prove their God they would void faith and stop everyone from going to the pearly gates. They are their own worst enemy!

      Delete
    2. You're right Gavin Doyle. We just made up the rules of math. and if we wanted to say the square root of 25 is 6, it would be 6. Same goes for physics. We just made up those rules too.

      I don't even believe in binary logic, I believe in multi-value logic instead. We made up logic too. So we don't have to believe it if we don't want to. When it comes to deciding if binary logic is true or false, I say it's false. Since we made it up we can unmake it.

      Delete
  3. Really weird stuff. I think it comes from an attempt counter the atheist argument that so much of the world-view of the faithful relies on, well, faith! So they try to point out that atheists, and in fact everyone, relies on faith.

    The version of this argument I heard on Christian radio had two men (one Christian, one atheist) having a discussion. The atheist said something like "I don't rely on faith for anything. I only make decisions in my life based on known facts." So the Christian asked the atheist how he could feel safe going anywhere in a car, because he did not know for absolute, positive 100% surety that the breaks would work. The Christian then explained that the atheist simply had faith in the breaks working.

    I LOL'ed, and was amazed that they couldn't see the flaw in that argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, faith is not accepting the ridiculously small risks in life measured against the entirety of human experience. LOL worth.

      Delete
  4. Theists have tried to use biology to explain god, and it failed (flagellum). They then turned to physics and it failed (Casmir effect). I suppose Mathematics is their last hope. But this will fail too as how can faith be involved in math when the description of numbers is an abstract concept that we can test. However God is an abstract concept that we cannot test.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Without god 1 + 1 would equal 27846.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'd be nice if they could show it would equal something different. 42, maybe.

      Delete
    2. And without god suddenly square-circles would be popping up everywhere along with one ended lines. It would be pure madness.

      Delete