
A new book on Renaissance mathematics makes a bold case - Petiver
https://newrepublic.com/article/148150/math-kill-god
======
taneq
To save people a click, the bold case being made is "math killed God", ie.
mathematics was the key development which allowed us to build useful models of
the world and explain natural phenomena without needing to invoke a deity.

~~~
stephen_g
Such a claim wouldn’t be taken seriously by scientists who are also, say,
deists or Christians though (there are, perhaps surprisingly to some, quite a
few).

The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are
trying to answer the same questions. This is not necessarily the case for all
faith systems.

For example, I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he
didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” - that he
expects anything (within the limits of scientific explanation) can be
explained by science and mathematics, but simultaneously believes the whole
system was authored and is continually sustained by God.

For Christians and Jews at least, I wouldn’t expect that many people ever
believed in God just because science couldn’t explain things (in comparison, I
think a lot of polytheistic belief systems came out of trying to explain
physical phenomena). It’s more the idea of revelation (through prophets etc.)
and later the historical person of Jesus that would be the basis.

~~~
humanrebar
> I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t
> believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing”

It stands to reason that a being that created order from chaos and gave form
to the unformed would plausibly enjoy creating a universe that was internally
consistent.

I don't understand why the universe needs to be mysterious or inconsistent to
be created. I don't understand why it can't be (or at least seem to be)
billion of years old for that matter.

~~~
MR4D
I think you nailed it. To me, God is about the question of “why” and science
is the question of “how”.

That being said, I think God has to be a programmer - it’s the most efficient
way to create something huge (the universe), while being predictable, and
therefore knowing “everything”. The universe is just a huge - ok, really,
really huge - state machine. And the programmer who wrote it can predict it’s
state at any point of time.

------
RubenSandwich
This article begins with a false story about Galileo being locked up for
promoting heliocentrism. That is not why he was locked up. Copernicus came
before Galileo, promoted heliocentrism and was employed by the Catholic
Church. Galileo was locked up for political reasons, and because he was pretty
antagonizing to the pope of the time. If you want a quick cartoon describing
the events Adam Ruins Everything did a section on it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRHbQEHdRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRHbQEHdRU).

Sources: [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_ov...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism)
[2] [http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-
everything/blog/adams-...](http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-
everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-everything-the-copernican-ruin-
aissance.html)

~~~
sambull
I beg to differ and so do your sources, "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect
of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at
the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and
that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared
contrary to Holy Scripture."

Your just saying if he would have kept enough political clout he could have
got a pardon? Because the axe was falling once they felt he 'advocated'.

~~~
RubenSandwich
I'm arguing that heliocentrism was a means to an end. The Catholic Church was
being accused of not taking the Bible seriously by the Protestents which is
what caused the whole "heliocentrism heresy", but it wasn't really about
heliocentrism it was about the Catholic Church trying to protect themselves.
See also this line from the wikipedia article:

"The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De
Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's
instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a
mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he did not advocate for its
physical truth."

This was a political move, with heliocentrism being the vechicle.

~~~
jamesrcole
But if he hadn't promoted heliocentrism would he have been locked up?

I'm not sure of the answer to that, but if he wouldn't have, then it's more
than reasonable to say that he was locked up because of the heliocentrism, and
that there were broader reasons for their crackdown on things like
heliocentrism.

An analogy: if we imagined, for the sake of the argument, that in the modern
world, there are political motivations for cracking down on certain drugs. A
person gets jailed for possession of one of these drugs. It's fair to say that
possession of the drug was the reason they were jailed, and that the law
behind it was politically motivated.

~~~
pfortuny
He was given the way out of stating it as a Hypothesis. He simply did not want
to AND insulted the other party.

I mean: it was not a problem with heliocentrism (the jesuit scientists
supported it), it was a problem of politics.

You can be right but do not expect the other party to absolve you if you
insult it.

~~~
acqq
> it was not a problem with heliocentrism

It surely was. Copernicus' book remained also banned by the Church for 202
years more after Galileo's sentence. That very sentence by the Inquisition
directly banned Galileo's book and sentenced him to lifetime (house)
imprisonment. It was so light because Galileo "abjured, cursed, and detested"
his errors ("false opinion that the sun is the center"), and his Abjuration is
also preserved (I quote parts of it):

"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, seventy years of
age, arraigned personally for judgment, kneeling before you Most Eminent and
Most Reverend Cardinals Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity in all
of Christendom, having before my eyes and touching with my hands the Holy
Gospels, swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's help
I will believe in the future all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
holds, preaches, and teaches. However, whereas, after having been judicially
instructed with injunction by the Holy Office to abandon completely _the false
opinion that the sun is the center of the world and does not move and the
earth is not the center of the world and moves_ , and not to hold defend, or
teach this false doctrine in any way whatever, orally or in writing; and
_after having been notified_ that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scripture;
_I wrote and published a book_ in which I treat of this already condemned
doctrine and adduce very effective reasons in its favor, without refuting them
in any way; therefore, _I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy,
namely of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and
motionless and the earth is not the center and moves._

Therefore, desiring to removed from the minds of Your Eminences and every
faithful Christian _this vehement suspicion, rightly conceived against me,
with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the
above-mentioned errors and heresies,_ and in general each and every other
error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Church"

------
Blackthorn
There's a fairly amusing and apocryphal anecdote about Laplace that relates to
this. You can read more about it here:
[http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote](http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote)

“Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the
following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so
characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone
had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God;
Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the
remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the
system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace,
who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every
point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas
besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ ['I had no need of that hypothesis.'] Napoleon,
greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ‘Ah! c’est une
belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.’ ['Ah, it is a fine
hypothesis; it explains so many things.']”

------
thousandautumns
I was under the impression that few historians actually agree with the story
of Galileo being imprisoned for pushing Heliocentricity. I recall reading that
by that point heliocentrism wasn’t controversial and Galileo’s house arrest
came as a result of a combination of errors in his own work and his personal
conflicts with the pope.

What’s more, I believe I’ve read that most of the “conflict” between religion
and science has been overblown. The environment of opposition we sometimes see
today didn’t really begin to manifest itself until the 19th and 20th
centuries.

------
british_india
I will add that taking calculus in high school was the final stake in the
heart of my belief in god.

Calculus shows you that complex outcomes can result from quite simple causes.

~~~
fjsolwmv
What caused the simple causes?

~~~
jack9
Who cares?

Just because I rolled a ball downhill, doesn't mean I was solely responsible
for starting it, but worked in tandem with the laws of nature that exists. Nor
am I the god of the effects, just because I was an instigator.

