When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Joods]

Your post is exactly why some believers here feel like they can't have any sort of meaningful conversations with non-believers about anything. No matter the subject.

There aren't that many believers on here any more capable of carrying on meaningful conversations, full stop.

Your point is invalid.
Just because the number of atheists here far outnumber the theists is no reason to deny anyone, regardless of beliefs or not, the opportunity to engage in good meaningful debates.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Was the game of chess invented or discovered? I think we would agree it was invented...The situation is very similar in mathematics. We invent the mathematical system and then discover the consequences of our assumptions.

On first blush that appears to be a reasonable position until one question arises. Does mathematics reveal truths about reality.?

[Silver]

On first blush that appears to be a reasonable position until one question arises. Does mathematics reveal truths about reality.?

Yep, it's called numerology.

[Amarok]

On first blush that appears to be a reasonable position until one question arises. Does mathematics reveal truths about reality.?

No it remains reasonable even when questions arise. Their is no contradiction nor even a real issue with believing math reveals truths and it being a human invention .It only becomes an issue if your ideologically to make it an issue because it takes away your talking points .

[polymath257]

Was the game of chess invented or discovered? I think we would agree it was invented...The situation is very similar in mathematics. We invent the mathematical system and then discover the consequences of our assumptions.

On first blush that appears to be a reasonable position until one question arises. Does mathematics reveal truths about reality.?

No. It helps us *phrase* truths about reality (as does any language). But in and of itself, it has no bearing on reality.

Added: The point is that we can never know if the mathematical language actually applies in any given real situation. That must be tested through observation. Hence math, at best, gives us a way to talk about things, but cannot reveal anything.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Biblical infallibility has to rank among the most common delusions. "If the bible says 2 + 2 = 5 I would believe it and try to make my world work on that basis." ("Questioning Darwin", NOVA.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

No. It helps us *phrase* truths about reality (as does any language). But in and of itself, it has no bearing on reality.

Are you saying that any correspondence between mathematics and physics is purely accidental and that there is no essential relationship between them?

[polymath257]

No. It helps us *phrase* truths about reality (as does any language). But in and of itself, it has no bearing on reality.

Are you saying that any correspondence between mathematics and physics is purely accidental and that there is no essential relationship between them?

No. I am saying the correspondence is *exactly* the same as that between any other language and the real world. *WE* are the ones that use the language to describe the world, and thereby set up the correspondence. That isn't accidental, but it also isn't something deep about the universe (except, perhaps, that it has enough regularity to be described).

In math, *we* chose the rules for calculation to give good results in the real world. The nice thing about math is that it allows for description of any number of regularities. So, many regularities that are seen through observation can be *modeled* using mathematics.

When a mathematically described physical law is found to be incorrect, we look for another mathematical description that is closer to reality. That is using math as a *language*. it is an expressive language for certain types of things. But the language and the reality should not be confused.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are you saying that any correspondence between mathematics and physics is purely accidental and that there is no essential relationship between them?

No. I am saying the correspondence is *exactly* the same as that between any other language and the real world. *WE* are the ones that use the language to describe the world, and thereby set up the correspondence. That isn't accidental, but it also isn't something deep about the universe (except, perhaps, that it has enough regularity to be described).

Unfortunately that is implicit in your response - that rule-based manipulation of arbitrary symbols has no essential relationship to reality other than what is arbitrarily assigned by a knowing subject. You are also implying that the apparent order of physical reality has no rational foundation.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's nothing arbitrary about the assignment. Try it, try arbitrarily assigning some function or mathematical statement and see how representative it is.

Does 1+1=2 hold true in the context of human procreation?

We define our variables, and we pick the functions and systems explicitly for their ability to accurately model..then we check the results of those models continuously.

Will you be describing the divine calculus that determines the point at which my shaking my dick after I piss becomes sinful masturbation, and showing your proof..at any point?