/sci/ - Science & Math

Because God is a number.

>>1117882
You just blew my mind. Do you have a blog?

>he was a devout Christian (and believer in biblical inerrancy)
>Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error.
hohohohohoooooly shiiit

because people still mistake specific ability for general ability (ie "good at science" = "genius" = "good at everything")

That's not Sir Isaac Newton, silly goose.

Everyone back then in that area was Christian.

That's like asking why communists didn't exist 150 years ago.

If I grew up then, I would probably be a devout Christian too, through brain-washing/mental conditioning.

>>1117875
... what are you babbling about? Paul Erdős wasn't Christian. He was a doubting Jew.

>>1117875
That's like asking why you don't tell your family that you're a pedophile.

>>1117904
So why did he "argue forcefully against the prominent atheists of his time"?

>>1117916
First, if I recall correctly, "atheists" were just "people that weren't (their particular brand of) Christian."

Second, I would probably have been the same way hundreds of years ago, back when science and logic wasn't very well thought out, and when there wasn't contradictory evidence about the Bibble.

>>1117875
because he was good at math?

The Erdos joke aside, most lists of great mathematicians do put Newton, Gauss, and Archimedes in some order as the top three.

Justify your choice of Euler.

>>1117952

This man has it right.

Imho it's Newton.

>>1117875
You mean a person born in a region and era that has great religious pressures is likely to turn out religious?! Holy shit!

because back then people had more common sense instead of today where you have a bunch of atheist perma virgins

Gauss was a Christian? never knew...

>>1117952
Most lists would then be wrong.

Euler is the master of us all. No one even comes close.

Newton was also an alchemist.

>>1117981

I see no justification here, only trolling.

>>1117952
I would put Archimedes in with Galileo and Da Vinci, more of a polymath and Renaissance man than just a mathematician.

I would put Euler above newton because he was more prolific, made more contributions to number theory, invented graph theory and solved most of its most difficult problems, about the same contribution as newton in combinatorics, less than newton in analysis.

overall, newton was too involved in a bunch of other stuff (theology, physics, alchemy lol), making Euler the greater mathematician.

I can just feel the atheist butthurt channeling through the internet.

Noether was a Christian? Cool, never knew

>>1117985

Read about him, dude. Euler is up there with Gauss and Newton.

Fyi: Newton was also considered to be highly religious.

As pure mathematicians, Euler definitely trumps Newton.

But in terms of general contributions to the world, I'd put Newton above even Aquinas.

>>1118003
>>Aquinas
>>inb4 atheist shitstorm

>>1118002
indeed, Euler was fucking amazing. But I don't know if he was the "greatest"... I've heard Gauss tossed around as the greatest, but I have to admit I am fond of Euler

I became a born again Christian after I found out Newton was a believer. He can't possibly be wrong about anything.

Newton was religious because he lived in the 17th Century. What's your excuse?

>>1118031
Except mechanics, gravity, alchemy, light...

>>1118043
I converted to Catholicism, contrary to the environment I grew up in. No excuse, Thomas Aquinas and his summa won me over.

>>1118002
>>1118031
Newton was religious, but you may want to read up on what he actually believed. It's probably almost nothing like what you believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

>>1117989
So you're saying the fact that Newton and Archimedes did other things somehow makes either of them *less of a mathematician*? WTF an I reading?

>>1118092
yes, they made fewer contributions to mathematics because they were involved in other things

i'm measuring them by the body of their work and mathematical accomplishments, not by how smart they are even if they didn't do as much (if that was the case, Galois might be up there).

>>1117875

So he was Christian because everyone one Christian; despite his known strong faith and his active interest.

So can I say you are Atheists because most of the scientific/w3 community is seeming atheist?!

I surely know for a fact that you are less literate in theology than he (and any decent Christian for that matter) are.

>>1117895

Yeah but what does today's atheist have on him?! I don't think anything changed?!

>>1117875
because like all religious folk, he obviously feared DEATH more than anything. And the easiest thing to cure that fear and go on about your day is the elementary belief in immortality. Which a god figure provides; making the idea ever the more popular. Had someone whispered in his ear...the key to life is life itself and to live it as much as possible, instead of merely existing and following archaic traditions and superstitions like not working on sunday and taking the lord's name in vain. He probably wouldn't have been religious.

Maybe because his father was a pastor?

>>1118148
Because you personally knew Newton, so you can speak for what motivated his decisions.

Honestly? That's a huge leap you just made.

most men of science during the enlightenment were deists. believing in a "god" though taking a firm stance that he did not interfere with the laws of the universe.
and to add more insult to injury, one of the greatest proponents of the sciences during this period was saint Thomas Aquinas

>>1117875

I'm starting to think these atheists everywhere on the web are mostly major trolls who are at best self denying skeptics only reinforced by each others posts making it seem like a strong atheist community.

because he didn't have a choice and everything at the time was defined in Christian terms

>>1118170
or modern society just breeds more skeptics than it used to

>>1118160 Aquinas was brilliant. Even if you disagree with the conclusions he reached, you can't deny it.

>>1118155
I wasn't talking about Newtorn or speaking for anyones "motivations" just the simple assessment that religious people fear death and "The End" and immortality possibly in a happy heavenly paradise is the easiest cure. With the added comfort of being part of a group and a part of something much bigger than ones self is quite attractive and much easier thought process.

>>1118179
implying that literally every religious person is driven just by these factors

I decided to disbelieve in the Trinity, just like Newton. Now I've been discommunicated from my church. Feels good man.

>>1118179

No it's the other way round. Being Christian and living a Christian life is not the easiest thing ever. Jesus himself warned of this several times. It's very difficult for the wealthy to enter heaven. And by wealthy he didn't mean as economical status alone.

I know people who I can bet are self-deny atheists because they can't redeem themselves and can't live a Christian life so they prefer a life time of material joy and the nothing.

He was good mathematician, doesn't make him good at everything.
Nowadays majority of scientists are dicks instead of christians. Something has to compensate.

>>1118184
Absolutely, whether they admit it or not. Even if they tried to think of the alternative (possibly rotting in hell forever or living a life without a supposed "meaning") they would come running back to their ol' comfortable beliefs of "I'm gonna live with god in a happy place forever just like mommy and daddy if I'm good"

>>1118187

Not yet. What are your reasons for this disbelief? What is your level of Christian theological literacy?

You are still Christian.

>>1118206
What about people who find god through theistic philosophy?

>>1118206

Absolutely not. That's just what the theologically illiterate do; and there's as much of them Christians as there are Skeptics.

>>1118203
back in the old days they were dicks too, Newton was known for being a serious cock.

>>1118178
i think you misunderstood.

the insult to injury was meant for all the athiestfags on this board. close mindedness is the sure sign of low intelligence.

>>1118201
>Summa Theologica
>The second part of the Summa deals with man's purpose, the meaning of life, which is Happiness.

>>1118203

>Nowadays majority of scientists are dicks instead of christians.

Oh this is rich. Pharisaical Bible thumper spotted.

You want dicks? Look right at Evangelicalism. "If you don't believe like we do, in the LITERAL (while we pick and choose anyway) interpretation of OUR SPECIFIC VERSION of the Bible, you are going to BURN FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER IN THE LAKE OF FIRE BECAUSE GOD HATES YOU, and we do too, but we try to hide this."

You are laughable.

Go away. You guys are nutty.

>>1118201
See you're putting a weak monetary initiative and its not that at all. Being an atheist has nothing to do with a having guiltless quest for money and bullshit. Material wealth is an empty vessel and any free-thinking atheist thinks the same of a deity. For me it's peace of mind. I don't have to worry about swearing too many times, or not going to church, and end up burning some place forever, because I know its a cheap ploy and superstition. I stop worry about that shit and am free to read and believe what I want, explore science, politics, music, literature, anything I want. It's quite the liberating feeling much more than any bullshit belief I shared for the first 20 years of my life.

>>1118206
I agree that a lot of Christians, even a majority, believe what they do out of comformity or a need for emotional security. But by the same token, many people are atheist simply out of rebellion against a Christian upbringing.

I urge you to consider that, even though you disagree with the tenants of Christianity, many reasonable and rational people do not.

>>1118223
>Pharisaical
fuck that's an awesome word

>>1118232

Thanks. It's tough to spell right at times, though.

>>1118225
>many people are atheist simply out of rebellion against a Christian upbringing.
those are the angry activist ones that get in your face

>>1118216

>meaning of life, which is Happiness.
We defer on that.

>>1118224

Thanks.

>>1118241
By happiness, Aquinas refers to joy, the 'diffusion of good.'

In common terms, the result of doing good works. Pleasure has a legitimate role in this, but it is not man's end.

>>1118225

>many people are atheist simply out of rebellion against a Christian upbringing.

And some of us were brought up to think for ourselves, because our parents were mentally abused by the Catholic Church, went Episcopal (because it was close enough) and eventually dropped out of organized religion altogether.

I was told point blank to think for myself.

I'm an agnostic. I get it from the militant atheists too, and I get called a "teapot atheist." But whatever. I think what I think, and for me to fool myself into believing in the Great Sky God That Hates Me Because I'm A Sinner (but here is an out...it's easy, just mouth these words and you're out of jail free!).

I have read the Bible myself. It's a freaky book.

God, should he exist, hates false piety. He hates it very, very much. Embracing Pascal's wager guarantees me a place in the Lake Of Fire if it exists.

>>1118285

I did not finish this thought:

I think what I think, and for me to fool myself into believing in the Great Sky God That Hates Me Because I'm A Sinner (but here is an out...it's easy, just mouth these words and you're out of jail free!) is self deluding and makes me a hypocrite.

>>1117912
Lmao, best explanation ever.

>>1118285
I applaud you for thinking for yourself.

But please have the courtesy not to mock ideologies with which you disagree. I am not agnostic, but I do not poke fun at you.

>>1118285

>I have read the Bible myself. It's a freaky book.

Really? Lol

>>1118264
'good' is a very loaded word, its very presumptuous to give it definition, even for the likes of Thomas Aquinas

>>1118309
It's actually a fairly concrete thing, good. Although it may be beyond me to explain it, Aquinas is referring to a very specific thing.

>>1118309
I'll defer to my favorite modern philosopher, Mortimer Adler.

http://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-good.html

>>1118301
Not the same guy, but I disagree that it is everybody's right to hold opinions without criticism.

If a man claims to be the son of a pink elephant god, I will call him crazy, a danger to society and suggest hospitalization for him.

If a man calls himself a believer in some mono/polythiestic religion, I will assume he is simply institutionally indoctrinated and leave him on his way.

Ideologies SHOULD be criticized, or else you get the culture we have now where people just believe whatever they're told and don't make an ounce of effort to think about anything.

>>1118356
You misunderstood what I said.

Criticism, rational discourse, and discussion are essential. I was only speaking against mockery.

>>1118223
I'm not sure what you're
>>implying
I'm just saying scientists tend to go for the more logical reasons to be dicks these days. Like advancement, personal gain, research, etc

In the dark ages it was normal to be a devout Christian cause that's the only life you knew since you were born

You don't argue about Euler not being the greatest mathematician

Leonhard MOTHERFUCKING Euler became blind and instead of stopping working he dictated the stuff to his son.

Deep inside you are all butthurt because he was a chirstian, yet a fucking genius that unlike you fags, didnt put science as an enemy of religion and viceversa

>>1118356
Isn't it entirely possible that someone might have reached different conclusions than you have? Does it necessarily make them indoctrinated, simply because their conclusions are so drastically different from your own?

>>1118331
I find ontological reasoning attributed to reality disturbing.

>>1118375
Then I suggest you steer clear of most any philosophy

>>1118373
I'm playing the odds there, I think most people that subscribe to a religion do so blindly

>>1118378
probably why i switched from philosophy to math

>>1118400
I ask that you distinguish between playing the odds and outright assuming.

If your reasoning and conclusions are absolutely incompatible with a philosophical premise as basic as the Good, then I can't disagree with you decision. It happens that mine do not, so I study both.

>>1118301

>But please have the courtesy not to mock ideologies with which you disagree.

I mock Evangelicals, Dominionists and others of the Fundamental persuasion because they are not Christian at all. It's all about in-group politics. It's not Golden Rule" big-picture care for your fellow human being. It's "let's beat up on illegal immigrants because we hate them" in spite of various admonishments in the Old Testament not to.

It has been more than once I have been told I am going to Hell for not believing. I don't know how else to put it. It's not a choice. Either you are convinced or you are not. I am not. But for this, I am going to burn in a lake of fire, for eternity, with Gawd Awlmightah renewing my skin so I can feel the pain again and again and again until the End Of Time because I did not "go along to get along"

But if I do indeed "go along to get along" and the Fundies are actually right, I burn forever in a pit anyway.

That is not what Christ taught. Not what I've read.

This was not my fight. I am seen as less than even a criminal because I'm not a believer. I am traitorous.

Well fuck them. They are ridiculous. They deserve mockery.

>>1118303

Yes, it's freaky. Ezekiel was freaky.

>>1118421
Continue with what you're doing then, but unproductive ridicule is just that - unproductive.

>>1118447

> but unproductive ridicule is just that - unproductive

Right, because I just should shut up and let the abuse from fundies continue.

Uh huh.

Welp Jesus already died for my sins so I look at life as it its a blank check now. If I end up in hell wouldn't that mean Jesus died in vain?

>>1118406
I "assume" they are indoctrinated, because I think most people that subscribe to a religion are. There are always exceptions such as theologians and religions philosophers, I am playing the odds in that I have run into the indoctrinated and not the thinking. The indoctrinated don't like to talk about religion anyways, so its a win-win situation.

>If your reasoning and conclusions are absolutely incompatible with a philosophical premise as basic as the Good, then I can't disagree with you decision. It happens that mine do not, so I study both.
I chuckled.

I never liked the idea of the ontological good being compared to what feels like a "finite" human good, it feels too much like saying one number is closer to the infinite than another when comparing moral platitudes. I prefer to look at morality in terms of something like a partially ordered set with no greatest good.

>>1118455
Not at all, but ridicule isn't productive. Action is, activism is. Make sense, not jest.

When you ridicule an opposing cause you do not bring it down, you only make yourself appear prejudiced.

>>1118463
au contraire, a system whereby one number is closer to the infinite than another is the basis for decision making.

>>1118465

I have tried the rational route. It's amazing how far you can get in a debate until they see that next logical step and back away from it and run all the way back to original premises. I have tried being nice.

I have had a boss tell me I'm going to hell. I bit my lip, seethed and raged privately. No longer.

Someone tells me I'm going to hell, I tell them they're going too, and to have a nice day.

By the way, I don't suppose you know just how dangerous Christian fundamentalists are. They are indistinguishable from Islamicists and other people who would kill you given the chance if you do not believe as they do.

I was convinced of this 30 years ago.

>>1118474
unnecessary, one only needs to decide one is greater than the other, even then I don't think this is always possible (not just not humanly possible, but decidedly impossible)

>>1117875
Because he lived in Russia.

>>1118474

Pure. Word. Salad.

>>1118495
Then I'll rephrase:
Human decision making presupposes that one outcome is really and actually more good than another.

>>1118490
I wouldn't ask you to be nice and civil about it. Kick, shout, proclaim their injustice, do what you're doing right now.

But mockery specifically has historically been ineffective as anything other than propaganda and oration as influence, which are strikingly similar to the cause you oppose.

>>1118492
I guess I misunderstood.

And there we disagree. I maintain that certain outcomes and certain ends are objectively better than others. Not only that, but I maintain that human faculties, when unobstructed by fear, temptation, or ignorance, are a legitimate means by which to reach those ends.

>>1118506

That is a big assumption, and it is wrong.

People make decisions that are not in their own best interests (and against the best interests of those around) all the time. Even when they know it's not really what they want. And then they lie to themselves.

Your assumption is the mistake economists make when they create models. They assume that all actors are rational when they are clearly not. It is the entire basis for the Austrian and Chicago schools and it is *bogus*.

>>1117875

ANSWER: during his time he had access to more resources and was taken more seriously than atheists mathematicians

/thread

>>1118524
Those are absolutely true. Man's volition is often subject to fear, temptation, and ignorance.

But even though we know from experience that man's faculties of reason and will are capable of error, they still have the propensity to work properly, objectively pursuing a good end.

>>1118514

If someone tells me I am going to hell, I'm not going to reason with them. I am going to tell them what I think, because they have already abandoned rational discourse from the get-go. I am perfectly willing to debate rationally, but if you strike me in the jaw (metaphorically), don't expect me to be nice.

It's funny. Atheists and fence sitters like me are the ones that get burned at the stake, but it's for us to be polite. Something is wrong there.

>>1118589
I think we've reached an agreement

>>1118527

It's more like mathematics has nothing at all to do with christianity and the question assumes that smart people are necessarily hostile to religion.

Honestly, I have no problem with many religious people. It's when they get in my face that I have problems. One of most important people in US history was a baptist preacher and is basically responsible for the whole "separation of church and state."

To go off on this tangent, I find it shocking that there are Christians in this country that are willing to mix religion and politics and have the state give preferential treatment for Christianity, claiming that this country is Christian. I assume it would shock Roger Williams too. If he were alive he'd probably tell these people who wish to mix politics and religion that if they want religion in their government, they deserve government in their religion.

>>1118368
>Leonhard MOTHERFUCKING Euler became blind and instead of stopping working he dictated the stuff to his son.

As most people would have. That don't impress me much

Yuler.

You know, this is such a troll thread. If any of you took the question seriously, you'd know that there isn't one "greatest ever" mathematician. The nature of the game is that you stand on the shoulders of giants. And it will keep going long after we are gone.

Archimedes, Euler, Cauchy, Gauss, Newton, Leibniz, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Euclid...so many that I don't have the energy to list them all. You get the picture.

Or how about the ones that made them think, like Xeno? I like to believe that his paradoxes helped bring about the curiosity needed to make stuff like Calculus happen.

Who cares about the "who's the best" at the end of the day? Just appreciate the elegance of their proofs and thank them for allowing us to live in the modern world in the way we do.

>>1118856
>>1118856
>>1118856
>realizes it's a troll thread
>doesn't report it

>>1118856
Pythagoras was better known as a mystic than a mathematician. Euclid as an encyclopedist who compiled others' work. And Aristotle didn't even do mathematics at all.

Euler is king. Or possibly Archimedes. Or possibly Gauss. No-one else comes close.

>>1118863

Aristotle formulated the first real look at logic, hence I think his contribution to mathematics is unquestionable. Also, Pythagoras and Euclid were undoubtedly more important that you've alluded to.