2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!
This is not a science versus religion thread: I am simply wondering why this phenomena occurs from a psychological perspective, this is a psychology thread.
>>14984351Because the 'closer' a field of information gets to Humans, the more grounded in 'reality' it becomes. Nothing about mathematics grounds the imagination.
>>14984351There are only so many strange synchronicities you can come across in pure mathematics before you start to lose your mind
>>14984351A guess is that physics is further removed from from philosophy than math. By 1 degree seeing as math is between them.
>>14984351What is the rate for chemists,doctors and engineers?I'm going to guess doctors are going to be the best 1/50th I'd say.And that will probably be jewish so that's fine
>>14984351Math is based.Theoretical physics is malarkey man, cmon! It makes people question everything and go crazy.
>>14984351yes according to a 1996 study, thank you for the wonderful source
>>14984374Philosophers generally aren't religious. Nearly 3/4ths of them are atheist/agnostic according to a 2009 study. Philosophers back in the day believed in God because that was just the default worldview. A lot of these religious philosophers also greatly contributed to math.Modern day philosophers are more analytical and don't except improvable concepts like God.If you guys want the true Psychological answer, it's because the majority of people do believe in god. Mathematicians are less inclined than the average person to believe in it, so they're actually less religious. This could be because the Bible does contain some mathematical errors (Picrel) but generally the concept of a God is not in contradiction with mathematics.Physics, however, is in direct contradiction because belief in a Big Bang and the origins of the earth interferes with Genesis.
>>14984351all that time spent crunching numbers might make people see patterns where there isn't any. that's a rough explanation i can give you on the spot.
>>14984351Because Chadmaticians know evolution is impossible probabilistically, therefore God
>>14984397>What is the rate for chemists,doctors and engineers?My guess is 60% for chemists and engineers, 1% for doctors
>>14984415>If you guys want the true Psychological answer, it's because the majority of people do believe in god.How can someone believe in something if they don't act like it?
>>14984415That whole chapter 1 Kings 7 uses approximations for units... 30/10 is close enough.The same chapter uses other multiples of 10 or 5 to depict every other measurement, 100 this, 50 that, etc. it is just approximating, later the same circle is described with different units which are closer to pi.
>>14984415>the Bible does contain some mathematical errors (Picrel)that picture only further evidentiates that atheists are retardedThe thickness of the tank was four fingers (some versions speak of a palm or a hand) around 10 cm or 0.1 m, this value was given by God precisely because we cannot divide the outer perimeter by the inner diameter.Now with the value of the line that God drew which was on the inside, THE BORDER, i.e., the INSIDE DIAMETER, and the thickness that surrounded it, the OUTSIDE PERIMETER, we now have to subtract the size of the border to equal the INSIDE DIAMETER, by the INSIDE PERIMETER.The result is 13.5 / (4.5 - (2 * 0.10) ) which is about 3.14
>>14984351Physicists often have a narrow view of spirituality, metaphysics, etc because their thinking is constrained by their vast knowledge of their particular physical theories, which are only a tiny fraction of the full mathematical landscape of possibilities
>>14984351mathematics doesn't conflict with religion as modern physics does
>>14984415Did you really expect them to write 31.415926... cubits by 10 cubits?The author was clearly approximating. I.e 30 by 10.
>>14984463>That whole chapter 1 Kings 7 uses approximations for units...It does but pi isn't 3, I found a better explanation than the one I knew. It leaves no room for doubt but it's lost in translation from the hebrewhttps://youtu.be/SpdGQsWs0Qs?t=414
>>14984351*phenomenonRetard. Also, post source.
>>14984578If .999999... is 1, then Pi is 3.
>>14984537>Did you really expect them to write 31.415926... cubits by 10 cubits?i expect G-D to be more competent at math than humans>thou can findeth the diameter of the holy bowl if thou useth the divine ratio which is obtained by adding 1 divedith by odd number alternating between plus and minus sign infinite times then multiplying the result by four SAYS THE LORD
>>14984677>i expect G-D to be more competent at math than humansThe point of the Book is not to be a Maths textbook though, it is supposed to be a guide to freedom, a law for the nation, a guide to live your life righteously and a summary of the history of this world from its creation.
>>14984677You are embarrassing yourself because you have clearly not read the book
>>14984677>>14984696>>14984733The Bible is unironically shit tier among major world texts on spirituality and divinity. Why waste time discussing it at all?
>>14984769t. seething atheist
>>14984775I am “theistic”, just not a whitefag fed western propaganda and shit tier religion
Anyone else in this thread support squaring the circle?
>>14984351OP, my IQ is higher than 80, so I'm afraid I can't just accept that picture without question.
>>14984351My guess is mathematics attracts more insecure individuals and insecure individuals are more likely to neep cope for their existential dread.
>>14984351believing in god and believing in christianity/islam etc is totally different really. One is about questioning and considering everything, the other is about thinking how you are told to think. It would be good to know what % of that 50% had personal beliefs vs traditional religious beliefs
>>14984351Math is dense in humans. Physics explains sterile shit. Philosophy tries to explain existential dread. But Math is simply useful, you become filled with joy that it's used everywhere and you can simply use your intuition to work with other fields once you get the abstract theory
>>14984950Very based that zoomers and millennials are coming to Christ.
>>14984954Christ is gay and Christianity is stupid and for the weak. Embrace pagan religions.
>>14984954it looks more like it's showing people grow out of it as they get older
>>14984960>Christ is gay and Christianity is stupid and for the weak.Don't you usually complain that Christians "converted you by the sword"?
>>14984998Actually I think Hinduism/Buddhism and Eastern philosophies are far more advanced and thoughtful. But, I was worrying that it might be too complicated to jump directly to those, for a Christfag.
>>14985012If you think that, then you probably read a lot of Orientalist philosophy and haven't grown up with Eastern religion. As someone who grew up with Buddhism, you really do not understand how retarded it is.
>>14984351Math is beautiful. Physics gets REALLY really gross sometimes. Beauty inspires a belief in God.
>>14985015I personally grew up with Hinduism. But, care to elaborate?
>>14984351pretty simple: physicists deal with reality, mathematicians don'tas such it's no surprise that physicists are less delusional
>>14984374philosophy originated as natural science, and the two are intimately related to this dayphysics and philosophy are far more interrelated than mathematics is to either
>>14985021In the West Buddhism is portrayed in a very romanticized way, when in actuality it's an extremely convoluted and self-contradictory religion with 100s of schismatic doctrines and 1000s of allegedly accurate texts. I grew up with Japanese Buddhism, but I've done cultural comparison research between the formulas of Japanese, Chinese, and Tibetan Buddhism and there's very little common ground and not much "true" doctrine to be found. As a faith, denominations vacillate wildly between cosmic nihilism, complete submission to power/absolute pacifism, and ripping off Christianity wholesale (Pure Land Buddhism).It's really just a mess, and as I'm sure you know Hinduism is far worse. 100,000 local cults do not a coherent theology make.
>>14985020and this, sadly, is the tragedy of humanity: most people, including yourself, will prefer a beautiful lie to the ugly truth
>>14985026What are some delusions held by mathematicians?
>>14984470Naturally it would be people in the biological sciences who would disbelieve in God because the whole field pokes more than enough holes in what the Bible proscribes.
>>14984351And don't forget 85% of the general populace (aka dumbies) believes in God
>>14985015having originally come from a Western perspective and passed through a phase of immersing myself in Eastern thought, I agree with the general sentiment, but not that it's all retarded, because it's not all religiousI've since come full circle to embracing Western philosophy that is reminiscent of parts of Eastern thought in many areas, particularly Epicureanismall in all my conclusion is that the philosophical thought of both the East and the West, at least that which is grounded in both reason and observation, are quite advanced, and share many similarities to each other (as one would expect the parts that are closer to objective truth to be)
>>14985046as per OP's image, apparently a lot more of them are religiousreligion is delusional
>>14985039Well sure, but I am only interested in the actual philosophical texts and schools of thought which organize themselves into these religions. Not the particular manner by which it is practiced, by whichever of the thousands of groups of normies eating that stuff up and arguing amongst themselves about trivial things.Hinduism is mainly about the concepts of dharma and karma, enlightenment and moksha, etc. While it varies in its beliefs in other areas (eg dualism/dvaita vs monism/advaita), there are still overarching central ideas tying the different schools of thought together.
>>14985048yep, over the years I've found that the scientific areas I appreciate the most are actually fields like evolutionary biology, biochemistry, neurophysiology, anatomy, paleoanthropology, primatology, genetics, botany, zoology, and ecologyessentially leaning more and more towards life sciences in general, i.e. the overarching field of biology
>>14985058We’ll religion doesn’t have to mean organized religion. For example, suppose I worship the totality of all reality as God. Is there anything delusional about that? Certainly reality is real (by definition).
>>14985091Autocorrect changed “Well” to “We’ll”
>>14985091religion is religion whether it's organized or notyour example is just exploding the meaning of language 1984-style by redefining "the totality of all reality" to mean something it doesn't mean at allit's particularly telling due to the fact that it includes the word "worship", which is totally meaningless in the context of "all reality" due to how "worship" refers specifically to some higher personage, whether it be natural or supernaturalso at the very least you're ascribing agency and personality to "the totality of all reality" by that phrase, i.e. redefining it to mean what is signified by the word "God", hence why such a statement would be religious and delusional
>>14985110I didn’t ascribe any agency and personality to anything bitch. Those terms are human inventions and are meaningless on the grand scale of everything
>>14985114yes, by including the term "worship" you did just that"worship" only applies to an entity with agency and personality
>>14985124No, I can worship the trees, the sun, the rain. Stop thinking like a christfag for Christ’s sake.
>>14985130again, that's incorrect, that's not what "worship" means at all, you cannot "worship" any of those things, except if we find out trees or Sol are somehow volitional and personal entities (but they would still not be equivalent to "the totality of all reality"ironically it sounds like you're the one who has been infected with the mind virus of desert death cults and other religious sects, as you apparently feel a strong urge to "worship" (despite not really even understanding what the word actually means)
>>14984351The answer I want to give is that physicists implicitly work within the framework of math. They assume mathematical facts are objectively true, and from that implicit order, figure they can make sense of the material universe. In a sense, math does the same "job" as god, being a timeless metaphysical from which truth and order can not only be derived, but must abide by because they're synonymous.By contrast, mathematicians study math itself. They're more intimately familiar with its shortcomings, and alternative systems of doing math. They're more likely realize that mathematical principles aren't a sufficient substitute for even deeper metaphysical ones that sometimes approximate religion.>Why 'x' ?>Physicist: Because [physical principle]>Why [physical principle]?>Physicist: Because [mathematical principle]>Why [mathematical principle]?>Physicist: Eh, that's just how it is. It's the only way it can be. >Mathematician: Actually no, that's not the ONLY way it could be. The fact that we do math in this particular way and it happens to work out is a total fuckin crapshoot. So, idk, god?I think it's important to add that the epistemic foundations of science are slightly different from math. Science assumes that 'THE truth' exists, and can be known, at least in part. Mathematical 'truths' are only true in so far that the axiomatic assumptions they're deduced from are true.I want to say all that. But if "god" actually refers to a specific (abrahamic) god, then the other anons are probably right. Mathematicians are easier to delude because they don't engage with reality.
>>14984351>I am simply wondering why this phenomena occurs from a psychological perspectivePhysics is far more midwit-friendly than mathematics, and midwits tend to be champions of the status quo, which happens to be atheism for now. I doubt this is the only factor, but it needs to be accounted for before you look for more profound psychological factors.
>>14984351Because the "study from 1996" wasn't properly referenced in your image and was probably flawed if it ever even existed. If you have questions about this supposed phenomenon start by looking at that
>>14984960>Christ is gayIf he was, would that be a problem for you? Do you think zoomers would be appalled by that?>Christianity is [...] for the weak. Yes, it is! Very good point. It is, of course, not exclusively for the weak, but definitely helps those in need.>Embrace pagan religions.Did you know that Christianity was heavily inspired by paganism? You can think of it as a less raw version 2.0 where bugs and mistakes were ironed out. It's really cool!
>>14984351math doesn't contradict religion as much as science does since math doesn't make direct statements about the world.
>>14985306>i don't know what i'm talking about but reality probably conforms to my expectations and vindicates my ideology
>>14984470So people in the biological sciences are more likely to be the person who scores only 1 and 10 on reviews
>>14985261>>Why 'x' ?>>Physicist: Because [physical principle]>>Why [physical principle]?>>Physicist: Because [mathematical principle]Completely wrong. You're probably a philosophy undergrad.
>>14985312His pic says "believe in God". It doesn't say "are religious". Many of the founders of modern physics believed in some kind of god. Physics is pretty agnostic.
>>14985313What are you even talking about? Did you reply to my post on purpose?This thread is based on what is likely a faulty premise, and it could be clarified if the study was actually cited properly. I didn't read the whole thread, but I bet not one person bothered to question the source
>>14985318He's not wrong. You're probably still in highschool so you don't have first-hand experience of physicists constantly appealing to mathematical formalisms to justify outlandish conclusions.
>>14985325>This thread is based on what is likely a faulty premiseIt's possibly a faulty premise, but how do you know it's "likely" a faulty premise? Do you get what I'm talking about now? You're clearly not as intelligent as you think you are.
>>14985331Why did you even bother to post? I don't know whether the premise is faulty or not because I can't see the source, that is my point.I think it probably is incorrect because I don't think there's a huge difference in the type of people that become mathematicians and physicists and I also think that if the study existed and was valid it would have actually been cited properly.
>>14985342>I think it probably is incorrect because I don't think there's a huge difference in the type of people that become mathematicians and physicistsPlease refer back to >>14985313. You should also read >>14985265 while you're at it.
>>14985377Oiler's formula or something. :^)
>>14984531Yes it does, even more so, math is perfectly fine with the numerical origin being some empty set of null value rather than some infinitely dense omnipotent singularity,
>>14984696>a summary of the history of this world from its creation.Which would require a very precise "maths textbook" to property explain.
>>14984351>people who study how the universe works are less likely to believe the universe is driven by magicWhy is this surprising?
>>14985180Sure, Boniface, that must be why you christfags went around attacking towns and chopping down ancient holy old growth trees because nobody was worshiping them instead of your violent bureaucracy.
>>14985401>nooooooo le heckin christians are too violent>fuck off christcuck, you weak semitic death cult
>>14985328No he is wrong, they will reference [empirical measurement] long before [mathematical principle] since they first expect some kind of empirical justification for any particular mathematical principle.
>>14985383How is that a strange synchronicity?Do you mean unintuitive equivalency (often relying on some infinite process) such as the value of a transcendental number or how .9...=1 or 0!=1?
>>14985404>me attack helpless tree, me big and strong now
>>14985407>they will reference [empirical measurement] long before [mathematical principle]Another high-schooler.
>>14985412No one guarded those heckin treerinos?
>>14985418No, physics is all about observation trumping calculation and if your past calculations don't match future observations than your mathematical model was simply wrong.
>>14985424>physics is all about observation trumping calculation and if your past calculations don't match future observations than your mathematical model was simply wrong.That's how it was supposed to work. Too bad real life doesn't match what your highschool teacher tells you.
>>14985421Are you talking about the ones that were worshiped for generations?They practiced security through obscurity and just tried to hide the location from outsiders kind of like they do now with the exact location of the world's tallest tree being removed from google maps and the like.
>>14985426Yes it is how it is suppose to work which is why a physicist explaining why it is suppose to work according to physics (>>14985261 >>14985318) will reference consistent observation as the ultimate benchmark rather than some mathematical model no matter how much your physics 101 TA ignored all your silly suggestions before you failed out of college.
>>14985440Okay, but this website is 18+. Please go do your homework.
>>14985444>homework doesn't reflect reality>do it anyway so you are as disconnected from reality as I
>>14985446Your homework probably isn't as disconnected from empirical observations as advanced theoretical physics.
>>14985328I'm an actual physicist. You're an actual retard. Mathematics is a tool to describe what is found empirically and to derive predictions from hypotheses so they can be falsified (or not, if you're lucky). No physicist ever will argue something on the basis of a mathematical formalism saying so. Unless they're fools.
>>14985458>Mathematics is a tool to describe what is found empiricallyFeynman (probably one of your heroes) got a Nobel prize in physics for inventing a physically meaningless mathematical hack. Since you're "an actual physicist", you tell me what I meant by this. :^)
>>14985463You mean you failed out of a sociology degree and all your physics knowledge is based on something you heard through random popsci channels.
>>14985466Okay, but what was I referring to? You're an "actual physicist" so it should be no trouble for you to figure it out. :^)
>>14985468You were referring to your small popsci understanding of physics.
>>14985472That's what I thought. Go do your homework, "actual physicist". I'm getting secondhand embarrassment from talking to you.
>>14985474Ok, go back to asking your customers if they want fries with that.