My experience is that theological discussions with average folk are discussions akin to ships passing in the night. Theological discussions among academic theologians are about hair splitting. Mathematical formulas might force discussion participants into viewing and learning a new symbol set/icon that is more precise and focuses the discussion more clearly eliminating many of the emotional and cultural ties to words.
Can we put theological constructs into mathematical language?
John says: Let me respond by asking, Can we express personal relationships in mathematical language? The answer surely is no. Personal and transpersonal (divine) experience needs a different language, in which the precise and quantifiable concepts of mathematics are replaced by something richer and deeper, employing such resources as symbol and story
Showing posts with label Mathematics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mathematics. Show all posts
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Nature of Knowledge
I have recently encountered an interview with you conducted by Krista Tippett, which appeared in her book, Einstein's God. The interview raised quite a few provocative questions in my mind, and I beg for the liberty to share one of them with you:
I know, with something approaching absolute certainty, that, if A > B, and B > C, then A > C. I also know, with the same certainty, that, if I substitute a "<" or an "=" sign for the ">", the same kind of relationship holds. But what is the nature of my knowledge? I have, after all, only examined a very small percentage of the possible a's, b's, and c's in the universe, and none of them very scientifically. So is my knowledge of logical relationships different, in any fundamental way, from mystical insight?
When I was much younger, I was quite impressed for a time by the writings of Ayn Rand, who draws a very sharp dichotomy between rationality and mysticism. But, when I examine the nature of rationality itself, the distinction seems to vanish. I would be quite interested in your thoughts on the matter, and would be most grateful for any guidance you might give to my perplexity.
NB Response: Our knowledge of mathematical truths that can be logically proven is in a sense the only “certain” knowledge and does not depend on an examination of instances, but on the consequences of axioms. And of course if you substitute “is within 1 mile of” for > the deduction does not hold.
However mathematics does show us is that:
a. Not all truths are empirical
b. Not everything that is true can be proven.
I know, with something approaching absolute certainty, that, if A > B, and B > C, then A > C. I also know, with the same certainty, that, if I substitute a "<" or an "=" sign for the ">", the same kind of relationship holds. But what is the nature of my knowledge? I have, after all, only examined a very small percentage of the possible a's, b's, and c's in the universe, and none of them very scientifically. So is my knowledge of logical relationships different, in any fundamental way, from mystical insight?
When I was much younger, I was quite impressed for a time by the writings of Ayn Rand, who draws a very sharp dichotomy between rationality and mysticism. But, when I examine the nature of rationality itself, the distinction seems to vanish. I would be quite interested in your thoughts on the matter, and would be most grateful for any guidance you might give to my perplexity.
NB Response: Our knowledge of mathematical truths that can be logically proven is in a sense the only “certain” knowledge and does not depend on an examination of instances, but on the consequences of axioms. And of course if you substitute “is within 1 mile of” for > the deduction does not hold.
However mathematics does show us is that:
a. Not all truths are empirical
b. Not everything that is true can be proven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)