[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 2.47 MB, 1877x1061, science vs religion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14984351 No.14984351 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

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.

>> No.14984367

Because the 'closer' a field of information gets to Humans, the more grounded in 'reality' it becomes. Nothing about mathematics grounds the imagination.

>> No.14984373

There are only so many strange synchronicities you can come across in pure mathematics before you start to lose your mind

>> No.14984374

A guess is that physics is further removed from from philosophy than math. By 1 degree seeing as math is between them.

>> No.14984397

What 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

>> No.14984409

Math is based.
Theoretical physics is malarkey man, cmon! It makes people question everything and go crazy.

>> No.14984412

yes according to a 1996 study, thank you for the wonderful source

>> No.14984415
File: 121 KB, 1581x417, Screenshot 2022-11-14 180737.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Philosophers 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.

>> No.14984450

all 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.

>> No.14984455
File: 358 KB, 551x747, mysterious hooded chadmatician.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because Chadmaticians know evolution is impossible probabilistically, therefore God

>> No.14984459

>What is the rate for chemists,doctors and engineers?
My guess is 60% for chemists and engineers, 1% for doctors

>> No.14984462

>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?

>> No.14984463

That 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.

>> No.14984470
File: 42 KB, 685x411, 12052_2013_Article_33_Fig1_HTML.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14984479

>the Bible does contain some mathematical errors (Picrel)
that picture only further evidentiates that atheists are retarded

The 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

>> No.14984527

Physicists 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

>> No.14984531

mathematics doesn't conflict with religion as modern physics does

>> No.14984537

Did you really expect them to write 31.415926... cubits by 10 cubits?

The author was clearly approximating. I.e 30 by 10.

>> No.14984578

>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 hebrew

>> No.14984612

Retard. Also, post source.

>> No.14984665

If .999999... is 1, then Pi is 3.

>> No.14984670


>> No.14984677

>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

>> No.14984696

>i expect G-D to be more competent at math than humans
The 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.

>> No.14984733

You are embarrassing yourself because you have clearly not read the book

>> No.14984769

The Bible is unironically shit tier among major world texts on spirituality and divinity. Why waste time discussing it at all?

>> No.14984775

t. seething atheist

>> No.14984787

I am “theistic”, just not a whitefag fed western propaganda and shit tier religion

>> No.14984796

Anyone else in this thread support squaring the circle?

>> No.14984799

OP, my IQ is higher than 80, so I'm afraid I can't just accept that picture without question.

>> No.14984890

My guess is mathematics attracts more insecure individuals and insecure individuals are more likely to neep cope for their existential dread.

>> No.14984914

believing 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

>> No.14984950
File: 54 KB, 654x623, pew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14984951

Math 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

>> No.14984954

Very based that zoomers and millennials are coming to Christ.

>> No.14984960

Christ is gay and Christianity is stupid and for the weak. Embrace pagan religions.

>> No.14984982

it looks more like it's showing people grow out of it as they get older

>> No.14984998

>Christ is gay and Christianity is stupid and for the weak.
Don't you usually complain that Christians "converted you by the sword"?

>> No.14985012

Actually 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.

>> No.14985015

If 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.

>> No.14985020

Math is beautiful. Physics gets REALLY really gross sometimes. Beauty inspires a belief in God.

>> No.14985021

I personally grew up with Hinduism. But, care to elaborate?

>> No.14985026

pretty simple: physicists deal with reality, mathematicians don't
as such it's no surprise that physicists are less delusional

>> No.14985037

philosophy originated as natural science, and the two are intimately related to this day
physics and philosophy are far more interrelated than mathematics is to either

>> No.14985039

In 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.

>> No.14985041

and this, sadly, is the tragedy of humanity: most people, including yourself, will prefer a beautiful lie to the ugly truth

>> No.14985046

What are some delusions held by mathematicians?

>> No.14985048

Naturally 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.

>> No.14985053

And don't forget 85% of the general populace (aka dumbies) believes in God

>> No.14985055

having 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 religious
I've since come full circle to embracing Western philosophy that is reminiscent of parts of Eastern thought in many areas, particularly Epicureanism
all 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)

>> No.14985058

as per OP's image, apparently a lot more of them are religious
religion is delusional

>> No.14985066

Well 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.

>> No.14985068

yep, 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 ecology
essentially leaning more and more towards life sciences in general, i.e. the overarching field of biology

>> No.14985091

We’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).

>> No.14985094

Autocorrect changed “Well” to “We’ll”

>> No.14985110

religion is religion whether it's organized or not
your 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 all
it'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 supernatural
so 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

>> No.14985114

I didn’t ascribe any agency and personality to anything bitch. Those terms are human inventions and are meaningless on the grand scale of everything

>> No.14985124

yes, by including the term "worship" you did just that
"worship" only applies to an entity with agency and personality

>> No.14985130

No, I can worship the trees, the sun, the rain. Stop thinking like a christfag for Christ’s sake.

>> No.14985180

again, 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)

>> No.14985261
File: 70 KB, 480x608, chemicals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The 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.

>> No.14985265
File: 555 KB, 2753x2718, 325234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I am simply wondering why this phenomena occurs from a psychological perspective
Physics 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.

>> No.14985306

Because 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

>> No.14985310
File: 1.65 MB, 2124x3010, 1666464018098666.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Christ is gay
If 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!

>> No.14985312

math doesn't contradict religion as much as science does since math doesn't make direct statements about the world.

>> No.14985313
File: 69 KB, 452x363, 3524344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>i don't know what i'm talking about but reality probably conforms to my expectations and vindicates my ideology

>> No.14985316

So people in the biological sciences are more likely to be the person who scores only 1 and 10 on reviews

>> No.14985318

>>Why 'x' ?
>>Physicist: Because [physical principle]
>>Why [physical principle]?
>>Physicist: Because [mathematical principle]
Completely wrong. You're probably a philosophy undergrad.

>> No.14985323

His 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.

>> No.14985325

What 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

>> No.14985328

He'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.

>> No.14985331

>This thread is based on what is likely a faulty premise
It'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.

>> No.14985342

Why 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.

>> No.14985343

>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
Please refer back to >>14985313. You should also read >>14985265 while you're at it.

>> No.14985377

Such as?

>> No.14985383

Oiler's formula or something. :^)

>> No.14985384

Yes 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,

>> No.14985388

>a summary of the history of this world from its creation.
Which would require a very precise "maths textbook" to property explain.

>> No.14985400
File: 684 KB, 628x865, 1668428324571918.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>people who study how the universe works are less likely to believe the universe is driven by magic
Why is this surprising?

>> No.14985401

Sure, 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.

>> No.14985404

>nooooooo le heckin christians are too violent
>fuck off christcuck, you weak semitic death cult

>> No.14985407

No 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.

>> No.14985410

How 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?

>> No.14985412

>me attack helpless tree, me big and strong now

>> No.14985418

>they will reference [empirical measurement] long before [mathematical principle]
Another high-schooler.

>> No.14985421

No one guarded those heckin treerinos?

>> No.14985424

No, physics is all about observation trumping calculation and if your past calculations don't match future observations than your mathematical model was simply wrong.

>> No.14985426

>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.

>> No.14985434

Are 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.

>> No.14985440

Yes 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.

>> No.14985444

Okay, but this website is 18+. Please go do your homework.

>> No.14985446

>homework doesn't reflect reality
>do it anyway so you are as disconnected from reality as I

>> No.14985450

Your homework probably isn't as disconnected from empirical observations as advanced theoretical physics.

>> No.14985458

I'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.

>> No.14985463

>Mathematics is a tool to describe what is found empirically
Feynman (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. :^)

>> No.14985466

You mean you failed out of a sociology degree and all your physics knowledge is based on something you heard through random popsci channels.

>> No.14985468

Okay, but what was I referring to? You're an "actual physicist" so it should be no trouble for you to figure it out. :^)

>> No.14985472

You were referring to your small popsci understanding of physics.

>> No.14985474
File: 37 KB, 750x471, 1639761441543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

That's what I thought. Go do your homework, "actual physicist". I'm getting secondhand embarrassment from talking to you.

>> No.14985478

Ok, go back to asking your customers if they want fries with that.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.