Humbuggery

August 6, 2008

Rationality, meet Anger.

Filed under: IDiocy, Religion — jfredett @ 12:01 am

Have you ever been so incredibly annoyed, so frustrated, so viciously upset that you simply want to spit fire.

Thats about how I feel right now. It’s interesting- I’m rarely this emotional about anything, I’m simply not this kind of person, but here I find myself fire-filled and furious as such. My rationality tells me not to write anything right now, as it will likely not only be crappy, but devisive and hurtful.

I’ve decided to do what the religiots do, ignore reason, forget rationality, and go with my gut.

One should be, and this one is, amazed at how incredibly annoying it is when people cannot see simple points for what they are. I made a comment, about a common myth, something which I hear alot, and to be honest, it doesn’t piss me off that much. It’s the “Phi in the pyramids” myth, that is, that different famous structures are somehow perfectly aligned to due north, or are built with the ratio phi in mind, typically the example is the pyramids or the parthenon. This is a trivial thing- but it misrepresents why we do mathematics. There is so many more interesting, equally simple, and ultimately correct ideas people can latch onto in math. How about the sheer simplicity that is the Pythagorean Theorem? The complex elegances mingled with the tremendous triviality in Euler’s formula. It reminds me of how people vehemently deny the beauty of evolution, replacing it instead with trivial idiocy like Creationism. It simply boggles me. The fact is, if you measure the pyramids, they are woefully not phi-like in any way. They are not aligned perfectly north, they are aligned more or less that way, but it is no feat of mathematics, it is some simple astronomy. There is nothing special about these structures mathematically. They are just pretty, grand, or austere. Marcus Livio wrote an excellent book, I believe it was called “The Golden Ratio” or some such. Fantastic book.

That is not what I’m angry about, what I’m angry about is that I mention this, and am promptly scolded by my mathematically illiterate sister for whining. You’re damn right I’m whining, I take pride in my profession, she claims that I don’t expect the same treatment when I comment on religion, since I haven’t studied it professionally — utterly false — of course I expect rebuke from the professionals of religion, I’m not a professional, and if I’m wrong and feigning to be correct, then sure, I expect rebuke. The difference here, I wasn’t wrong, the people were pushing a myth, they took the ideas unskeptically, they purport to be scientists. Science implies Skepticism, you cannot avoid it, it’s part of the process.

My response was simple, “Apples and Oranges”, You simply cannot compare an idea like mathematics, where absolute truth is the norm, provability is the norm; to an idea like religion or philosophy, where absolutes are found few and far between. That is to say, in a logical system, something proven is proven forever.

Every system has foundations, in math, we have axioms, in religion, one has fundamental tenets — God exists, The Bible is an inspired book, etc. The difference is, in math, we derive provable truths from the axioms, I do not form an opinion, perform a loose interpretation of bits of some math text, and claim that I have proven it true eternally — that would be religion.

The fact is, theology is a subjective science, anyone can have an opinion, and as such I do.

The fact is, Math is objective, your opinion has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of any proposition.

It is provability versus spirituality.

So yes, I have opinions on your subjective bits of nonsense, just like I have conjectures in mathematics. The difference is, in religion, I can support any subjective opinion on my faith, and I win the arguement, in math, my conjecture lay naked at the steel of logic, it will either parry or perish, there is no faith.

So, I conclude, my mathematical knowledge trumps yours, and my religious opinions also are immune to any kind of attack, since I have faith in them, there, I win, you lose, you’re going to hell.

Now do you see why Atheists don’t tolerate that kind of logic? You moronic religious fuckwits?

4 Comments »

  1. [...] public links >> rationality Rationality, meet Anger. First saved by jayschellenberg | 2 days ago The limits of rationality and the illusion of [...]

    Pingback by Recent Faves Tagged With "rationality" : MyNetFaves — August 25, 2008 @ 8:45 am

  2. Hmm, this post speaks the truth: maths does trump any form of faith and religion. A bit of faith (so long as it’s rational) doesn’t hurt in life, but basing your whole world view on faith isn’t particularly smart. However, I just want to say, that you didn’t say what it was that happened in particular. I got the generics, but not much specifics. Who was saying what it is that you’re saying is false?

    Comment by Alex — September 15, 2008 @ 1:52 am

  3. [...] public links >> rationality Rationality, meet Anger. Saved by SwiftandFlash on Sat 08-11-2008 AeroRant #238 PC Snobs Saved by andreareginato on Thu [...]

    Pingback by Recent Links Tagged With "rationality" - JabberTags — November 9, 2008 @ 10:34 am

  4. [...] | user-saved public links | iLinkShare 3 votesRationality, meet Anger.>> saved by vellum 1 days ago4 votesEssay on why rationality is one of the assumptions of modern [...]

    Pingback by User links about "rationality" on iLinkShare — November 10, 2008 @ 12:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress