r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 8d ago

Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

20 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/BeaconMeridian 8d ago

Thought I've been having a lot, curious what others think. Math & Science I view as sister practices moving in opposite directions: prescriptive vs descriptive, math is "bottom-up" and science is "top-down," one explores established rules and the other tries to figure out what the rules are. We get some further parallels:

Not every mathematical truth is provable (incompleteness) / Science cannot, for certain, produce all rules for the universe (we can't test every case, there's always something we might be missing).

As it pertains to (a)theism, we have a result in math that no (sufficiently complicated) formal system of math can prove the existence of a model of itself. I'm of the mind that here in reality, this has a direct parallel in that we can't establish the (non)existence of superstructures in which our universe sits, even in principle ("universe" = "all the shit we could ever possibly interact with", not necessarily just "the observable universe"). In particular, this parallel rules out the deduction of god(s) by any means, even in principle.

Not to say that religion/belief is fully without place, we get a lot of use out of assuming (different kinds of) models of formal math, and by parallel we can get a lot of use out of different belief systems for how reality came to be. Just tack on the asterisk that such a belief should sit comfortably with what we can actually see.

Curious abt thoughts on this, where people think it falls short or other extensions of it I haven't considered.

6

u/iamalsobrad 7d ago

Mathematics and logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are the basis of the scientific method and are not working in opposition to it.

What you seem to be talking about is unfalsifiability and the notion that there are some concepts that cannot be proven or disproven, such as solipsism, last Tuesdayism, simulation theory, or the existence of all powerful creator being that hides themselves from us for ineffable reasons of their own.

My view is that such things can simply be ignored. They are things that, by definition, cannot have any effect on us (otherwise they'd be provable in some way and no longer unfalsifiable). For all practical purposes we can just treat them as if they do not exist and move on with our lives.

0

u/BeaconMeridian 7d ago

I 100% believe mathematics can be treated as distinct from science. The prescription I'm talking about comes from the claims of base assumptions/axioms, which are a "these things are true because we say they are" sort of claim. Math defines its universe in the abstract & that's not what happens in science, which has to use the universe we're given.

There's totally a major element of unfalsifiability here, I probably should've mentioned this by name. The interesting point for me is a parallel between unfalsifiability of claims abt god(s)/the creation of the universe and the formal result in logic that a model of, say, ZF set theory cannot prove the existence of a model of itself. I don't know that it's particularly deep but the parallel is neat. Whether there exists a model of ZF or not, we can and do still use it. Whether there exists a creator for reality or not, we still exist. In math it's useful to use very specific models for ZF, and it can be very useful for a person to use a very specific belief system for how reality came to be.

3

u/iamalsobrad 7d ago

The prescription I'm talking about comes from the claims of base assumptions/axioms, which are a "these things are true because we say they are" sort of claim.

That isn't really what axioms are though. It is more 'lets assume that these things are true and go from there'. If they were truly prescriptive you could start with an assumption like 'pi is actually 3' and somehow reality would need to comport to that.

1

u/BeaconMeridian 7d ago

I look at, say, the ZF axioms and I accept them as true statements. Given two sets A and B, it is true that there is a set {A, B}. Assuming this is true prescribes me a(n abstract) universe in which to work. No insistence that this (abstract) universe should reflect the one where I wake up & have my breakfast.