My response to Son of Frankenstein re: mathematics

[_Calculus Crusader]

On his blog, Jerry Coyne, who is supposed to be a famous evolutionary biologist, wrote the following in response to an article by Karl Gibberson titled Mathematics and the Religious Impulse:

Mathematics is, of course, a logical system invented by humans, and so has to “work”. One could equally well ask, “Why does logic work?” But if Giberson is asking, “Why does math help us understand the world?”, that seems equivalent to asking “Why does nature obey laws?” One answer is that if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. But maybe I’m missing something. Yet consider this: if nature didn‘t obey laws, would we see that as evidence for no God? Of course not! In fact, the temporary and local suspension of physical law is precisely what a miracle consists of, and miracles, of course, are evidence for God. So when physical laws are obeyed, God’s working, and when they’re broken, God’s working too. Perhaps there’s some intermediate degree of lawlessness that would convince the faithful that there is no God?

My response:

Professor Coyne,

I have no doubt that you are a giant among fruit fly ejaculate researchers but you are an ignoramus concerning mathematics (and other subjects, from what I’ve observed.) Humans did not “invent” mathematics. Not even Euler, Cauchy, Gauss, or the other greats of mathematics could have “invented” the fabulous results of complex analysis. And abstract algebra was advanced without any application in mind but it turned out to be crucial for physics.

But don’t let any of that stop you from babbling about subjects you know nothing about or spinning just so yarns.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Sir,

There are scientists that study fruit fly ejaculate?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_EAllusion]

I know there are respectable philosophers who think that mathematical entities are inventions of our systems of thought rather than discovered. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I know enough to know glib dismissal of antirealist conceptions of mathematical statements doesn't suffice.

This seems to be a side point in his argument here anyway though. I haven't read the exchanges, but it sounds like he's replying to an argument that the existence of mathematical intelligibility or harmony in the universe is evidence of God. If so, would be another classic example of defining God as having the property you are seeking to explain, then refusing to account for it in God. You can always cut the middle-man out there just by supposing that such harmony is a property of the universe itself, not that I'd recommend doing such a thing. After all all, "why mathematical order" is just a sub-variant of "why order?" Also, the latter portion of your quoted material then applies. When every possible outcome is expected given X, no individual outcome is really evidence of X.

[_Tarski]

1) The ontological status of mathematics, in particular, the extent to which it is a human invention is still debated among philosophers and mathematicians. A full platonism is not even the most prominant view among those who professionally consider the question.

2) It is irrevelant to his point anyway. The point is that the absence of law could hardly be evidence for the lack of diety since miracles (violations of law0 are the hallmark of a diety in the first place. This is not beyond criticism but is certainly not a stupid remark.

3) You should show much much more respect for people like Jerry Coyne whose intelligence can hardly be questioned on the basis of his taking up a position that opposes your Jesus belief.
In fact, you have an extremely annoying habit of discounting and arrogantly insulting anyone who vocalizes an intellectual argument in opposition to your religious notions. Your psychology here is all too transparent. You simply classify authors, commentators and scientists based on whether they argue for or against your theism or Christianity. You aren't thinking hard enough about it. Don't think that just because you can google a sophisticated sounding rebuttle to skeptical argument that this settles it. You overrate these religious types and underrate the arguments of skeptic and atheists (a high majority in the upper echelons of science). These people are much smarter than you think. You derision is often embarrasing. Many of these folks are extremely careful thinkers. Dennett is an example. Like him or not, and even if his conclusions are ultimately incorrect, he is thinking several levels above what you think he is. You don't seem to anticipate that there are good answers to the criticisms made of him by theists and mysterians (and they have been made). Stop just siding with theists as a matter of unconsious policy and think harder. If your opponent is a famous philosopher or scientist and you think their comments are just manifestly stupid, then it is likely that you are the one who isn't up to speed.
These guys might be wrong about many things but not for childish or stupid reasons that you can derisively identify in a few seconds. The whole thing is happening at a higher level than you think.

[_Some Schmo]

In fact, you have an extremely annoying habit of discounting and arrogantly insulting anyone who vocalizes an intellectual argument in opposition to your religious notions. Your psychology here is all to transparent. You simply classify authors, commentators and scientists based on whether they argue for or against your theism or Christianity. You aren't thinking hard enough about it. Don't think that just because you can google a sophisticated sounding rebuttle to skeptical argument that this settles it. You overrate these religious types and underrate the arguments of skeptic and atheists (a high majority in the upper echelons of science). These people are much smarter than you think. You derision is often embarrasing. Many of these folks are extremely careful thinkers. Dennett is an example. Like him or not, and even if his conclusions are ultimately incorrect, he is thinking several levels above what you think he is. You don't seem to anticipate that there are good answers to the criticisms made of him by theists and mysterians (and they have been made). Stop just siding with theists as a matter of unconsious policy and think harder. If your opponent is a famous philosopher or scientist and you think their comments are just manefestly stupid, then it is likely that you are the one who isn't up to speed.
These guys might be wrong about many things but not for childish or stupid reasons that you can derisively identify in a few seconds. The whole thing is happening at a higher level than you think.

You're a nice guy, and this is demonstrated by the extremely gentle treatment here (not to mention additional credit) compared to what the peon deserved.

His post can immediately be thrown on the ever growing "CC couldn't understand the point if it fell on him" pile.

[_Calculus Crusader]

1) The ontological status of mathematics, in particular, the extent to which it is a human invention is still debated among philosophers and mathematicians. A full platonism is not even the most prominant view among those who professionally consider the question.

2) It is irrevelant to his point anyway. The point is that the absence of law could hardly be evidence for the lack of diety since miracles (violations of law0 are the hallmark of a diety in the first place. This is not beyond criticism but is certainly not a stupid remark.

3) You should show much much more respect for people like Jerry Coyne whose intelligence can hardly be questioned on the basis of his taking up a position that opposes your Jesus belief.
In fact, you have an extremely annoying habit of discounting and arrogantly insulting anyone who vocalizes an intellectual argument in opposition to your religious notions. Your psychology here is all to transparent. You simply classify authors, commentators and scientists based on whether they argue for or against your theism or Christianity. You aren't thinking hard enough about it. Don't think that just because you can google a sophisticated sounding rebuttle to skeptical argument that this settles it. You overrate these religious types and underrate the arguments of skeptic and atheists (a high majority in the upper echelons of science). These people are much smarter than you think. You derision is often embarrasing. Many of these folks are extremely careful thinkers. Dennett is an example. Like him or not, and even if his conclusions are ultimately incorrect, he is thinking several levels above what you think he is. You don't seem to anticipate that there are good answers to the criticisms made of him by theists and mysterians (and they have been made). Stop just siding with theists as a matter of unconsious policy and think harder. If your opponent is a famous philosopher or scientist and you think their comments are just manefestly stupid, then it is likely that you are the one who isn't up to speed.
These guys might be wrong about many things but not for childish or stupid reasons that you can derisively identify in a few seconds. The whole thing is happening at a higher level than you think.

The embarrassment here, professor, is your defense of these noxious mediocrities. I've seen what Daniel Dennett has to say, for example, and he is a transparent moron (and a worthless pos). I believe you are highly intelligent but even so, you are no Kurt Goedel, Eugene Wigner, or G. H. Hardy. (The occupants of the New Atheist clown car you are attempting to defend are even less so.) If you are advocating for a slavish devotion to intelligence then you should be siding with them re: mathematical platonism.

[_Calculus Crusader]

You're a nice guy, and this is demonstrated by the extremely gentle treatment here (not to mention additional credit) compared to what the peon deserved.

His post can immediately be thrown on the ever growing "CC couldn't understand the point if it fell on him" pile.

Trying to hitch a ride on the professor's coattails does not make you any less mediocre, I'm afraid.

[_Some Schmo]

You're a nice guy, and this is demonstrated by the extremely gentle treatment here (not to mention additional credit) compared to what the peon deserved.

His post can immediately be thrown on the ever growing "CC couldn't understand the point if it fell on him" pile.

Trying to hitch a ride on the professor's coattails does not make you any less mediocre, I'm afraid.

I'm sure you were touching yourself when you wrote that, weren't you?

Dude, your grade school crush on me is embarrassing.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I know there are respectable philosophers who think that mathematical entities are inventions of our systems of thought rather than discovered. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I know enough to know glib dismissal of antirealist conceptions of mathematical statements doesn't suffice.

How many of them have a background in mathematics?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Example the First of Daniel Dennett's hyperphrenic writings that are supposed to be above my head:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ef-atheism

And my response to a post pimping it:

A wise op-ed? Perhaps in the parallel universe where algebraic topology is not boring, Gore won Florida, Begala's comment to McCain was a zinger, and Daniel Dennett is not an oxygen-depleting parasite.

Denmark, according to a recent study, is the sanest, healthiest, happiest, most crime-free nation in the world, and by and large the Danes simply ignore the God issue.

Which study and how was it conducted?

A national study by evangelicals in the United States predicted that only 4% of their children would grow up to be “Bible-believing” adults.

Which study and how was it conducted?

The Southern Baptists are baptising about as many today as they were in 1950, when the population was half what it is today.

Notice how this pretentious moron does not provide citations for his assertions? This is known as proof surrogate.

Incidentally, this myopic, Eurocentric moron apparently is unaware that traditional Christianity is expanding rapidly in Africa and Asia (including China), where most of the world's population is located. Perhaps someday they will be evangelizing us, just like the Irish evangelized the Continental Europe in Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages.