13 ms·

A new book on Renaissance mathematics makes a bold case

47 points by Petiver 9y ago

taneq 9y ago
To save people a click, the bold case being made is "math killed God", ie. mathematics was the key development which allowed us to build useful models of the world and explain natural phenomena without needing to invoke a deity.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  While we're at it, I consider the notiong of deity to be still present even in modern systems, as long as people found their existence onto something they don't understand it ends up as a god. We just swapped nature for other kinds of deities. GAFAism ?
- bmh_ca 9y ago
  Thanks for posting. The claim is not especially bold or novel, unless I misunderstand. Math can be seen as a source of absolute truth. It’s long been noted that this butts up against the monopoly that religion often claims over truth.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    So maths isn't axiomatic, and can be fully proven - Godel was wrong?
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Which is a nonsense argument because the Catholic Church one of the major sponsors of science throughout history.
- stephen_g 9y ago
  Such a claim wouldn’t be taken seriously by scientists who are also, say, deists or Christians though (there are, perhaps surprisingly to some, quite a few). The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is not necessarily the case for all faith systems. For example, I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” - that he expects anything (within the limits of scientific explanation) can be explained by science and mathematics, but simultaneously believes the whole system was authored and is continually sustained by God. For Christians and Jews at least, I wouldn’t expect that many people ever believed in God just because science couldn’t explain things (in comparison, I think a lot of polytheistic belief systems came out of trying to explain physical phenomena). It’s more the idea of revelation (through prophets etc.) and later the historical person of Jesus that would be the basis.
  - wzdd 9y ago
    "God of the gaps" is a derogatory term, and the idea of believing in a God just because some things cannot (currently) be explained is intellectually unpalatable. So I wouldn't expect most Christians to claim to believe in God for that reason, even if that was in fact why they believed.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” It stands to reason that a being that created order from chaos and gave form to the unformed would plausibly enjoy creating a universe that was internally consistent. I don't understand why the universe needs to be mysterious or inconsistent to be created. I don't understand why it can't be (or at least seem to be) billion of years old for that matter.
    - MR4D 9y ago
      I think you nailed it. To me, God is about the question of “why” and science is the question of “how”. That being said, I think God has to be a programmer - it’s the most efficient way to create something huge (the universe), while being predictable, and therefore knowing “everything”. The universe is just a huge - ok, really, really huge - state machine. And the programmer who wrote it can predict it’s state at any point of time.
  - taneq 9y ago
    > The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is the case now, precisely because any testable claim made by religion that conflicts with the evidence is eventually discarded. No amount of faith will let a demonstrably false claim stand indefinitely.
    - stephen_g 9y ago
      That’s a possible explanation, but I don’t think gels with history. The category distinction I referred to above came out of reformed theology before the Enlightenment and rise of modern science. Francis Bacon (credited with formalising the scientific method) himself described it in his essay Masculus Partus Temporum in 1603.
british_india 9y ago
I will add that taking calculus in high school was the final stake in the heart of my belief in god. Calculus shows you that complex outcomes can result from quite simple causes.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  What caused the simple causes?
  - jack9 9y ago
    Who cares? Just because I rolled a ball downhill, doesn't mean I was solely responsible for starting it, but worked in tandem with the laws of nature that exists. Nor am I the god of the effects, just because I was an instigator.
- creep 9y ago
  That's funny, calculus II proved divinity to me.
RubenSandwich 9y ago
This article begins with a false story about Galileo being locked up for promoting heliocentrism. That is not why he was locked up. Copernicus came before Galileo, promoted heliocentrism and was employed by the Catholic Church. Galileo was locked up for political reasons, and because he was pretty antagonizing to the pope of the time. If you want a quick cartoon describing the events Adam Ruins Everything did a section on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRHbQEHdRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRHbQEHdRU. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_ov... [2] http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-everything-the-copernican-ruin-aissance.html http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-...
- sambull 9y ago
  I beg to differ and so do your sources, "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture." Your just saying if he would have kept enough political clout he could have got a pardon? Because the axe was falling once they felt he 'advocated'.
  - RubenSandwich 9y ago
    I'm arguing that heliocentrism was a means to an end. The Catholic Church was being accused of not taking the Bible seriously by the Protestents which is what caused the whole "heliocentrism heresy", but it wasn't really about heliocentrism it was about the Catholic Church trying to protect themselves. See also this line from the wikipedia article: "The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he did not advocate for its physical truth." This was a political move, with heliocentrism being the vechicle.
    - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Blackthorn 9y ago
There's a fairly amusing and apocryphal anecdote about Laplace that relates to this. You can read more about it here: http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote “Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ ['I had no need of that hypothesis.'] Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ‘Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.’ ['Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains so many things.']”
thousandautumns 9y ago
I was under the impression that few historians actually agree with the story of Galileo being imprisoned for pushing Heliocentricity. I recall reading that by that point heliocentrism wasn’t controversial and Galileo’s house arrest came as a result of a combination of errors in his own work and his personal conflicts with the pope. What’s more, I believe I’ve read that most of the “conflict” between religion and science has been overblown. The environment of opposition we sometimes see today didn’t really begin to manifest itself until the 19th and 20th centuries.

47 points by Petiver 9y ago

To save people a click, the bold case being made is "math killed God", ie. mathematics was the key development which allowed us to build useful models of the world and explain natural phenomena without needing to invoke a deity.

agumonkey 9y ago
While we're at it, I consider the notiong of deity to be still present even in modern systems, as long as people found their existence onto something they don't understand it ends up as a god. We just swapped nature for other kinds of deities. GAFAism ?
bmh_ca 9y ago
Thanks for posting. The claim is not especially bold or novel, unless I misunderstand. Math can be seen as a source of absolute truth. It’s long been noted that this butts up against the monopoly that religion often claims over truth.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  So maths isn't axiomatic, and can be fully proven - Godel was wrong?
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Which is a nonsense argument because the Catholic Church one of the major sponsors of science throughout history.
stephen_g 9y ago
Such a claim wouldn’t be taken seriously by scientists who are also, say, deists or Christians though (there are, perhaps surprisingly to some, quite a few). The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is not necessarily the case for all faith systems. For example, I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” - that he expects anything (within the limits of scientific explanation) can be explained by science and mathematics, but simultaneously believes the whole system was authored and is continually sustained by God. For Christians and Jews at least, I wouldn’t expect that many people ever believed in God just because science couldn’t explain things (in comparison, I think a lot of polytheistic belief systems came out of trying to explain physical phenomena). It’s more the idea of revelation (through prophets etc.) and later the historical person of Jesus that would be the basis.
- wzdd 9y ago
  "God of the gaps" is a derogatory term, and the idea of believing in a God just because some things cannot (currently) be explained is intellectually unpalatable. So I wouldn't expect most Christians to claim to believe in God for that reason, even if that was in fact why they believed.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” It stands to reason that a being that created order from chaos and gave form to the unformed would plausibly enjoy creating a universe that was internally consistent. I don't understand why the universe needs to be mysterious or inconsistent to be created. I don't understand why it can't be (or at least seem to be) billion of years old for that matter.
  - MR4D 9y ago
    I think you nailed it. To me, God is about the question of “why” and science is the question of “how”. That being said, I think God has to be a programmer - it’s the most efficient way to create something huge (the universe), while being predictable, and therefore knowing “everything”. The universe is just a huge - ok, really, really huge - state machine. And the programmer who wrote it can predict it’s state at any point of time.
- taneq 9y ago
  > The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is the case now, precisely because any testable claim made by religion that conflicts with the evidence is eventually discarded. No amount of faith will let a demonstrably false claim stand indefinitely.
  - stephen_g 9y ago
    That’s a possible explanation, but I don’t think gels with history. The category distinction I referred to above came out of reformed theology before the Enlightenment and rise of modern science. Francis Bacon (credited with formalising the scientific method) himself described it in his essay Masculus Partus Temporum in 1603.

british_india 9y ago

I will add that taking calculus in high school was the final stake in the heart of my belief in god. Calculus shows you that complex outcomes can result from quite simple causes.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
What caused the simple causes?
- jack9 9y ago
  Who cares? Just because I rolled a ball downhill, doesn't mean I was solely responsible for starting it, but worked in tandem with the laws of nature that exists. Nor am I the god of the effects, just because I was an instigator.
creep 9y ago
That's funny, calculus II proved divinity to me.

RubenSandwich 9y ago

This article begins with a false story about Galileo being locked up for promoting heliocentrism. That is not why he was locked up. Copernicus came before Galileo, promoted heliocentrism and was employed by the Catholic Church. Galileo was locked up for political reasons, and because he was pretty antagonizing to the pope of the time. If you want a quick cartoon describing the events Adam Ruins Everything did a section on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRHbQEHdRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRHbQEHdRU. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_ov... [2] http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-everything-the-copernican-ruin-aissance.html http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-...

sambull 9y ago
I beg to differ and so do your sources, "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture." Your just saying if he would have kept enough political clout he could have got a pardon? Because the axe was falling once they felt he 'advocated'.
- RubenSandwich 9y ago
  I'm arguing that heliocentrism was a means to an end. The Catholic Church was being accused of not taking the Bible seriously by the Protestents which is what caused the whole "heliocentrism heresy", but it wasn't really about heliocentrism it was about the Catholic Church trying to protect themselves. See also this line from the wikipedia article: "The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he did not advocate for its physical truth." This was a political move, with heliocentrism being the vechicle.
  - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Blackthorn 9y ago

There's a fairly amusing and apocryphal anecdote about Laplace that relates to this. You can read more about it here: http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote “Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ ['I had no need of that hypothesis.'] Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ‘Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.’ ['Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains so many things.']”

thousandautumns 9y ago

I was under the impression that few historians actually agree with the story of Galileo being imprisoned for pushing Heliocentricity. I recall reading that by that point heliocentrism wasn’t controversial and Galileo’s house arrest came as a result of a combination of errors in his own work and his personal conflicts with the pope. What’s more, I believe I’ve read that most of the “conflict” between religion and science has been overblown. The environment of opposition we sometimes see today didn’t really begin to manifest itself until the 19th and 20th centuries.