By way of Pharyngula, I saw something that I simply had to repeat here.
Every august, James Kennedy - a thoroughly repulsive ultra-fundy preacher from Coral Ridge Ministries - runs a conference called "Reclaiming America for Christ". At this years conference, he featured a speech by Paul Jehle about "Evaluating your Philosophy of Education".
Jehle is... umm... how do we say this politely?....
Ah, screw it. Jehle is a fucking frothing at the mouth nutjob lunatic asshole.
His basic argument - the argument that he expects people to take seriously - is that everything is either christian or non-christian. And if it's non-christian, then christians shouldn't look at it, listen to it, or study it. And you can't ever make anything that started out non-christian christian.
How far does he go with this? Pretty damned far. Right into the domain of this here blog. In his talk, he uses the following story as an example:
I was taking calculus. I was a mathematics major and I was at a Christian college that was called Christian, but was not Christian....
I asked a question to my calculus professor: "What makes this course distinctly Christian?" He stopped. He said no one has ever asked that question before...
He said, "Okay, I'm a Christian; you're a Christian."
I said, "That's not what I asked! What makes this calculus course distinctly Christian? What makes this different from the local secular university? Are we using the same text? Yes. Are you teaching it the same way? Yes. Then why is this called a Christian college and that one a non-Christian college?"
Yeah. Seriously. Math is Bad, because it's not explicitly christian. I mean, it uses zero, which was invented by a hindu, and brought to europe by muslims. Algebra was invented by muslims! The word "algorithm" comes from the name of a muslim mathematician!
Uh-oh... I just realized that the alleged "Doctor" Jehle has a very serious problem. The way that we geeks heard his talk to write about it is because it was digitized - using a thoroughly non-christian technology - and posted on the internet, which is built using those non-christian algorithms. And to quite Jehle himself:
But the issue is you cannot combine something by its nature which is pagan and built on humanistic principles and make it Christian by a magic wand.
So the internet, and computers, and digital recording, and the data compression that makes streaming audio work - they're non-christian. And you cannot combine something non-Christian with something Christian.
Comments
The real shocker was the link to religious math classes ( http://www.trnty.edu/faculty/robbert/SRobbertWebFolder/ChristianityMath/Calculus.html ).
For example:
"Transformation under Christ
Eph. 2:1-7, Eph. 4:22-24
Differentiation is an operator on functions that takes one functions and transforms it into another form. The new form is related to the old form--the derivative tells interesting information about how the original function behaves graphically--but it is a completely new function. When someone accepts Jesus as Lord of their life and gives themselves wholly to God as one of His creatures, a similar transformation occurs."
Or:
"Once a person has been called to be a Christian, we are redeemed by Christ but not released from following the law of God. We are justified once but continue with the process of sanctification for the remainder of our lives. This sanctification process is like the limit process of the secant lines approaching the tangent line."
They even mix numerology into their religion in order to confuse their understanding of math!
There are similar ideas over on The American Scientific Affiliation apologetics organisation web. For example "Students should not only be taught "the facts" which modern textbooks present. They should also know that there are different presumptions as to what constitutes a "fact," as well as different interpretations and uses of them." ( http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Mathematics/PSCF6-87geertsema.html ).
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 8, 2006 8:27 PM
The library [of Alexandria] was subsequently destroyed by Julius Caesar, by Christian fanatics, and finally, by the Moslem caliph, Omar; Caesar burned the library as a military maneuver while fighting the Egyptians; the Christians destroyed the library because they were afraid it glorified paganism; caliph Omar is famous for his profound arrogance when he said that the contents of the library should be destroyed because if the manuscripts agreed with the teachings of Mohammed, they were redundant and need not be preserved and if they disagreed with the teachings of Mohammed, they were pernicious and should be destroyed.
We've got a new Omar here.
Posted by: Hypatia | August 8, 2006 8:32 PM
Sorry, the above is from Stewart, Michael. "People, Places & Things: Library of Alexandria", Greek Mythology: From the Iliad to the Fall of the Last Tyrant. http://messagenet.com/myths/ppt/Library_of_Alexandria_1.html
Posted by: Hypatia | August 8, 2006 8:34 PM
At this point some smartaleck in the back row points out that Jehle's name - horror of horrors - is German in origin! Germanic tribes are well-connected with their particular brand of paganism which still today survives in some words - Yule! Easter! Jehle's name is not inherently Christian! Heaven forfend!
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | August 8, 2006 8:42 PM
If I were the teacher, I would have told him that you need to learn more mathematics to know that the law of excluded does not necessarily hold true for every statement. Therefore something is either Christian or non-Christian is not necessary implies true...
Posted by: Mark Wan | August 8, 2006 8:58 PM
It's only a matter of time before they collapse into paradox and ask "how Christian is Christianity?"
Posted by: Nick | August 8, 2006 9:30 PM
Yeah, my jaw dropped and bounced off the floor when I hear Jehle babbling about what makes calculus Christian. As I noted in my original post, he never did tell us. Jehle's talk is available at the Coral Ridge website for people who can stomach more of it. He's freaking bonkers.
Posted by: Zeno | August 8, 2006 9:37 PM
I guess this means you'll have to rename the site.
Bad Math, Worse Math?
Evil Math, Bad Math?
Posted by: John McKay | August 8, 2006 10:03 PM
What does this do to the number of the Beast? It makes sense that the Beast would use arabic numerals, but shouldn't Christians represent it DCLXVI?
Posted by: John McKay | August 8, 2006 10:09 PM
Funnily enough, I saw that "religious math classes" link on another site a few months ago --- the Maths page of Crank Dot Net. Apt.
Crank Dot Net is a really amusing site, by the way. Read at your own risk.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 8, 2006 10:32 PM
Why stop with math? I propose Christians take out of Christianity all that isn't completely original, but derived from earlier religions.
This leaves... virtually nothing. Except the midnight mass, which apparently is an uniquely Christian invention.
Posted by: Ilari Sani | August 9, 2006 2:24 AM
Jehle's right, you know. He's also (brilliantly, if you ask me) just managed to demonstrate why Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with rationality. Good job.
Posted by: J Daley | August 9, 2006 6:28 AM
Amazing. I say: Let´s all agree with him, and help him shutdown from all godless science.
I would LOVE to see those fundies reverting to stone age.
Posted by: cardoso | August 9, 2006 7:04 AM
That big ass Cadilac he drove into the mega church both built by engineers (no math there) surely must by un-Christian too.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 9, 2006 7:44 AM
Jehle gave his talk in Aramaic, instead of that heathen English, right?
Posted by: qetzal | August 9, 2006 8:52 AM
Is flipping fries at McDonalds unChristian? Must not be because that's about all he'll reduce Christians to for employment.
Posted by: Simple Country Physicist | August 9, 2006 9:18 AM
When I saw that on Pharyngula yesterday, I had to double check my (non-christian, I'm sure) calendar to verify it wasn't April 1. When I clicked on the link to the religious math class, I was convinced I was at a parody site like The Onion. Sadly, it was just another WTF moment because I came across something new from the fundies.
Posted by: frank | August 9, 2006 9:46 AM
Why is it always the peculiar, perverted form of American Christians/Christianity? And usually nutjobs in the southern USA at that? I don't know of any sort that needs their own "labelled brand" of things, i.e. the horrible "Christian rock" etc.
Posted by: Carl Christensen | August 9, 2006 11:46 AM
The Bible?
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 9, 2006 1:24 PM
Air. There was air before there was Christianity, so Christians shouldn't breath the air. Sounds just as rational (whoops a math word) as the rest of his argument to me.
Ben
Posted by: Ben | August 9, 2006 1:31 PM
"the bible" , nice job Bob O`H.
Posted by: penty | August 9, 2006 2:39 PM
As a Christian, and a Computer Science major, I think I can state that Jehle's opinion on this matter is not an orthodox Christian view of math.
In fact, anyone who's read history (or even just Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle) will recall that both Newton and Leibniz, fathers of the Calculus, were sincere and devout Christians who saw no contradiction between their religious views and their mathematical studies.
But back to Jehle's main idea: that every topic is inherently "Christian" or "non-Christian", and that the latter must be absolutely boycotted -- that's absurd, and I don't know a single Christian writer, theologian, or even personal acquaintance who would agree with it.
Posted by: Phil Crissman | August 9, 2006 4:12 PM
WRONG! Math is a basic property of God's creation. It is most assuredly Christian. Zero (and our other digits) is a symbol created and used by man to represent part of the math that God made part of His universe. Regrettably, Islamic terrorists do not have a corner on illogical, unreasonable, contrary to their book, fanatacism. (They just are currently the most barbaric.)
Darryl, New Mexico, USA
Posted by: Darryl Petrak | August 9, 2006 4:16 PM
Our little boy Calvin grew up!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99706190@N00/1869299/
Posted by: James | August 9, 2006 4:25 PM
Phil:
"both Newton and Leibniz, fathers of the Calculus, were sincere and devout Christians"
You are joking, right?
Newton is known as an heretic.
"In the 1690s Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Henry More's belief in the infinity of the universe and rejection of Cartesian dualism may have influenced Newton's religious ideas. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published. Later works -- The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) and Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733) -- were published after his death." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton )
Leibniz is known as a deist.
"Whereas Spinoza's system focused on a pantheistic determinism, Leibniz' required action from a God who is perfect. Following from this, he viewed perfection and the pre-established harmony as the highest ends of man. He espoused a philosophy which came to be known as deism, in which God creates the world and its contents as perfect, and as a result, it is not required as necessary that God intercede in the world at all--in fact, to ascribe such an action to God would be to make his actions seem superfluous." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz )
"Math is a basic property of God's creation."
So is hinduism, buddism, ... Game over, try again.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 9, 2006 4:50 PM
I was glad to see Phil finally point out the devout nature of these important mathematicians. In fact Newton wrote the Pricipia Mathematica, one of the founding works of calculus, as a proof of the existence of god. Newton believed that by understanding the mathematical rules of the universe we could touch the mind of god. Christ, some people. Myself, I don't believe in calculus any more than I believe in Jesus. Approximation is not truth!
Posted by: Jono | August 9, 2006 5:12 PM
Since he was at a Christian school, he likely expected the Math class to also reinforce his religious beliefs. So for example as they go through their studies the professor might add now and then how certain mathematicians were influenced by Christianity, and how they followed God to diligently pursue the areas of math they focused on. By learning about mathematicians of the past Christian students can have a framework or yardsticks to guide their studies. From a Christian perspective, everything should relate to God, otherwise whats the point?
Posted by: John Silma | August 9, 2006 5:15 PM
Let's not paint all Christians with the same brush here! It was the Catholic Church that preserved, protected and taught mathematics and other learned pursuits throughout the Dark Ages, and you would be hard pressed to find any Catholic mathematicians or scientists today who would agree with Jehle's assertions.
Posted by: petronius | August 9, 2006 5:22 PM
"Then why is this called a Christian college and that one a non-Christian college?"
Answer: It's full of you fundementalist nutjobs.
Posted by: Jason McCandless | August 9, 2006 5:39 PM
Torbjörn Larsson asked:
Not joking, maybe just not clear... ;-)
Perhaps I should have said "sincere and devout according to their own personal views."
Newton's rejection of the trinity would have been seen as heresy, but he didn't reject the Bible; rather, his rejection of the trinity was based on his personal interpretation of the Bible.
I'm not an expert on Leibniz' views; my understanding was that he would probably have defended his "deism" as being "Christian", but I may be wrong. In any case, he didn't see math as being incompatible with religious views.
Just my $0.02...
Posted by: Phil Crissman | August 9, 2006 5:40 PM
Xians welcome the application of technology that happened to have been delivered to this world by heathens, like steel and gunpowder. Once made holy by this acceptance, of course, the technology should be condemned as evil only when applied against Xians.
I do not wish to make madness a crime, but such people as this are the very exceptions that prove that rule.
Posted by: goddogtired | August 9, 2006 7:24 PM
Jono, you're not required to believe in calculus, but if you think calculus is approximation, then you don't know what calculus is.
Posted by: Zeno | August 9, 2006 7:43 PM
Funny...by his arguments I would think that maybe "air" is neither explicitly Christian or non-Christian.
Maybe he should just stop using that non-specifically Christian air and his problems would go away :-)
Posted by: NeverBeBackThisWay | August 9, 2006 8:31 PM
Does that meen that when Noah let the animals in by onezees and twozees he is considered a Non Christian?
Posted by: I cohen | August 9, 2006 8:47 PM
Phil:
"Perhaps I should have said "sincere and devout according to their own personal views."
Fair enough.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 9, 2006 9:23 PM
[RAF3 answer--posted 8/9/06]:
I have two comments. One is that Paul Jehle was speaking on the subject of "Evaluating Your Philosophy of Education." His question to the professor was a PHILOSOPHICAL one. Because he did not receive a proper answer he was left
unsatisfied, but that does not mean that he therefore concluded that the discipline of calculus, about which he was wondering, was indeed "unChristian." Perhaps he remains
agnostic with respect to that issue. I did not see any proof in what you presented about Jehle that he indeed is positing that calculus or any other subdiscipline of mathematics is
"unChristian." I think you have failed to understand what Jehle was trying to communicate. He was SEARCHING for an answer when he asked his professor. You are mocking and ridiculing someone who doesn't have to stand before your bar of judgment. He must stand before his Maker, as you, too, one day will have to do. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' day mocked Him, too, crying, 'Crucify him. Crucify him.' They hated the Son of God, as the Bible says, "without a cause." Jesus Christ is the innocent "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." It was for people like you and me that Christ (the Divine Son of God) took on human form and ultimately went to the cross and suffered to make atonement for our sins. Your attitude toward one who names the name of
Christ, however misguided he or she may be, is not the way Christ handles error in His sheep. He seeks and saves that which is lost. He is meek and gentle and lowly of spirit,
and will not crush a 'bruised reed' or 'quench a moldering wick' (where there is even an iota of faith). Your profane mockery is just that, empty, abusive, and ungodly, revealing
your own ignorance even while you are trying to aggrandize yourself.
My second point is that mathematics is part of God's creation. He created the world and all that is in it, including the mathematical relationships and principles by which it is governed. He has allowed certain enlightened persons (we call them mathematicians) to discover some of these mathematical equations, algoritha, formuli, etc. It reveals the greatness of our Creator that He has condescended to share with His creatures things that
improve their understanding of and ability to use His universe for their own benefit and edification. Ultimately God's purpose in all of this is to Glorify His own holy Name. It is unfortunate that Jehle's Christian professor at the Christian college he attended did not know these things and therefore was unable to articulate them to his inquiring student. Perhaps he had spent too much time wrapped up in all those formulae, equations, algorithms and the like, and not enough time contemplating the majesty and purposes of
the God he professed to adore. I suggest that you, too, should open your eyes to the wonder of this universe. Its every part speaks to the incredible Mind which has conceived
it and which continues to providentially govern it (by means of mathematically discernable principles)for His own glory.
Posted by: Andrew Fletcher | August 9, 2006 9:48 PM
Downright frightening.
Since I think math is the tool to understand the world
and as an engineer I use this tool to help the world make better products - basically, meeting people's needs by
using less material , energy etc.
The 'religious nut' is
frightening.
I also think that this sort of logic will be a big
setback to science in the US.
And the general science knowledge in the US has 'some room for improvement' Even a competant 19 century knowledge of math and science would be an improvement!
God save us from fools such as that man!
Posted by: John Brady | August 9, 2006 10:04 PM
If math is bad & unchrtstian the christendom will have to renounce all progess due to science & technology. If history
is to be believed all modern thought, including christian is
due to two great civilzations Hindu & Chinese. It must be noted Hindusim does not claim exclusivity unlike Christianity,Islam & other great religions, but includes them as well. Just as all the great rivers join the mighty ocean so do all religions of this universe finally join ME. There is no single text or individual[unlike Jesus/Bible or Mohamed/Koran]to which Hinduism can be traced, but is the work of many sages of yore who transmitted great ideas mouth to mouth via trusted diciples.Knowledge is like a lighted lamp spreadig light in darkness all round & its own brightness is not diminished by lighting other lamps.Such
is the universal nature of Hinduism. Do not condemn it to
be a big Zero because a hindu gave it to the world!!
Posted by: RSN Rau | August 9, 2006 11:03 PM
Andrew:
"His question to the professor was a PHILOSOPHICAL one."
No. You are making the same faulty assumption as he did.
He asked "What makes this calculus course distinctly Christian?" Since math is a tool, secular by definition, there can be no difference in the course *as long as it is about calculus*.
"My second point is that mathematics is part of God's creation."
So is hinduism, buddism, et cetera. You are making the fallacy of begging the question.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 9, 2006 11:04 PM
do we have the beginnings of an abstract algebra here?
N + C = N
C + C = C
N + N = N
C * c = C
N * N = N
N * C = 0
N * C = C * N
N * (N + C) = N * N = N
C * (N + C) = C * N = 0 !problem!
N * (N + C) = N * N = N
N * (C + C) = N * C = 0
N * (N + N) = N * N = N
C * (C + C) = C * C = C
C * (N + N) = C * N = 0
Posted by: ekzept | August 9, 2006 11:20 PM
I have a great concern for anyone who is blogging about these comments and is so extreme in their views as to harshly criticize either view point. That type of narrow mindedness is what keeps people ignorant. I am a devoted Christian/mathematician/physicist and they all work perfectly together. Although I am not overly critical of many world religions, I will tell you that Christianity is the only one that stands up to mathematical proof (not approximation or fantasy). Math was designed by God, used by God, and professes God. Physics is another area that is profoundly God in it's complexity and precision and for anyone open minded enough to take a look truely using scientific method (those who consider themselves logical and/or scientific take a hard look) will see God. God spoke through the Bible saying that "..all of creation point to me (paraphrased)".
For those wishing to criticize Christianity based on the early Catholic church and all of the coruption of non-Christians pretending to be Christian to gain power, please do some real research and save everyones time.
Ps. Check out the book "Case for Christ", "Case for the Creator", etc. and get back to me. They give a simple easy to understand introduction to the concept.
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 12:00 AM
Joe, I've seen The Case for Christ and The Case for a Creator and I must say that I was not impressed. Strobel is preaching to those wanting to be persuaded. His arguments are based on sifted evidence. In one place in The Case for Christ he makes a big deal out of some writings of Papias, but neglects to mention that Eusebius (the "Father of Church History") says that Papias "seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books." That doesn't raise one's confidence in the overall stregth of Strobel's case.
I have more at Getting on God's case.
Posted by: Zeno | August 10, 2006 12:39 AM
Zeno,
Nice to see that you are reading and doing research. If you continue the truth will be known. Please, humor me and give me the recognician of basing my information on more than one introductory book. If you would like to dig deeper, research "Nachmonades and Mamonades". These are two early Hebrew scientists/theologians who discovered higher dimensions without even knowing what they had done. This should be a good start. Then, just for giggles, take a look at the geneology from Adam to Noah and try to discover the prophecy that it depicts, and likewise the various orders of the tribes of Judah. Next, take a look at the transfiguration of Jesus and how He can walk through walls and how that relates to current theories of physics. What I am doing here is simply to give starting points for study and how profoundly accurate they are. Please, I ask you not to denounce the Bible because of a few granola bars (you know the fruits, nuts, and flakes). I have been studying these accuracies and (please, believe me when I say this) trying to find inaccuracies for many years now. I wish that I could say that I just believed like a child would believe, but I can't. I had to then, and am still proving these "fact" to myself because of who I am. I know the tendancies of man through study and experience, and no, I do not want to be made a fool of and be proven wrong. That is why I study so hard.
God Bless
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 1:06 AM
Hmm, somehow the course on math professing God wasn't part of my graduate school's curriculum. Or do I get the mathematical proof of God after I pass my thesis defense? (I guess I'll find out in 12 hours.)
Posted by: Davis | August 10, 2006 2:31 AM
Just realized something - Paper (at least in its original form, papyrus) was invented by non-christians. Why doesn't someone tell these guys they'll have to write their bibles on oblates, or stone tablets, then maybe we'll see them slightly less often...
Posted by: l0b0 | August 10, 2006 3:09 AM
This blog ,along with many commenting on it, missed what it seems Jehle is going after. He isn't attacking calculus(directly), but the "Christian" universities that would dare teach anything without Jesus in it. He might be labouring under the misconception that a Christian university is like a trades school or some technical institute, only focussing on making you a better Christian. Christain universities are just universities that are designated places for Christians to learn together, but having looked up and read more of Jehle's rant I can safely say explaining it to him is probably not an option. Him being a closed-minded, bigot who was never able to grow from the stage where Jesus did flashy miracles and find the message. It is a shame.
Interesting sidebar, Dr. Jehle is apparently a principal at some Christian school. Wonder what is on the curriculum?
Posted by: Sean T. Perry | August 10, 2006 3:28 AM
People tend to hear only things that support their own ideas and ignore contradictory beliefs.
Posted by: Andy | August 10, 2006 4:08 AM
OK so some people are "way out there". They don't speak for all Christians.
Christian = a PERSON who follows the teachings of Christ.
Nothing other than a _person_ can be "Christian".
That's what most people believe that I know, who profess to be Christians.
The idea of "Christian media" or "Christian books" describes "having to do with" the religion or theology, but other than that it's a misnomer. Only _people_ can follow Christ.
So don't let all this blogger hype-frenzy-FUD freak you out.
Posted by: troniq | August 10, 2006 4:39 AM
Most people who say they are Christian are not!
1 Jesus believed that your body is your temple so
that makes the church heirecy.
2 jesus believed that you help the people in the most need
he gave his life to help the poor, disabled and elderly so if you dont help to educate the poor and help them so they arnt poor any more your not christian.
i know critisizing will cause argument and possible anger
so im sorry.
i just have my own view that religions shouldn't be thought of as this is how it is, but instead a series of stories and philosophies which is what i believe jesus
originally intended in the first place
Christanity is a life style created by jesus to help
those in need. besides jesus was a Jew.
for those who don't know the council that crusifide jesus was held in an illegal meeting ware not all the members were present. so the crusifixion was illegal even by jewish standards. thats why the romans initially refused to crusify him. they sadly gave in under pressure however. so jesus died for the sins of criminals. criminals who were in power at the time.
considering this thats why it just irritats me that the Passion was called anti-simetic when it clearly showed that not all councile members were present in an illegal night time meeting.
small fact from art history. God was never considered to have a form of any kind in christianity untill a painter made the first portrait of God as a man
in i think my teacher said the 1500's i will need to look it up again. I personally won't choose a religion it will only bring trouble from people think the opposite of you
so i will only agree with the initially intended philosophies of religions which i think everyone agrees with no matter what Name you lable yourself with be it Christian, Muslim, African American, Native American.
if your an American your an American. If you a Person your a Person so just treat each other as such and if you don't agree ;P
Posted by: sean | August 10, 2006 6:15 AM
This may come to a shocking surprise to the preacher, but he had better start striping his clothes off, and taking his applances out of his house and more or less getting rid of his house to. Half of everything is foreign made, by you guessed it all other belivefs other than christian. Do you think the dork may have thought of that when buying or using anything material in todays life as we know it. If you see this guy naked in the street someday, run dont walk too the closest bar and a drink, you'll need one from laughing so hard.
Posted by: Steven | August 10, 2006 7:45 AM
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses - Lenny Bruce
Posted by: Mo Fobbs | August 10, 2006 8:21 AM
Andrew Fletcher:
I don't buy that argument. If you listen to the talk, Jehle is very clearly saying that he went to a college that called itself christian, but wasn't really; and as an example of that, there was nothing christian about his calculus class; it was exactly the same as a calculus class at a secular school. He's arguing that his college was *not* really christian because classes like calculus didn't have any christian content.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 8:52 AM
Joe:
Every purportedly mathematical argument that I've ever seen for the existence of God has been pure, utter gibberish. And telling me to go out and spend *my* money to buy a book in order to see *your* argument is pure idiocy.
You think you can make the argument mathematically? Fine. Show me the argument. Don't tell me to go out and buy a book in order to see it.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 8:57 AM
One of my high school students asked me why I teach math. I told him that math is reliable and absolute. In a world that changes every day, in a world where the people you thought you could count on may prove to be unreliable, you can "count" on math to remain the same. It has wonderful order, it relates so intricately into the scientific domain (which is in constant change due to so much newly observed "facts" that may not be the complete picture in 50 years) which is so marvelously fascinating, but changing all the time at the whim of some self-proclaimed intellectuals' interpretation of the data. That's about as close as I can get to saying that I teach it because it is so much filled with symbols of my faith.
How is math Christian? Something that I am not allowed to tell my students in the classroom, but many of my students may say there is that God is a God of order and reliability. He put all the pieces together for us to ponder, connect, analyze, and interpret.
The Book of the Bible - Numbers - doesn't seem non-Christian to me unless you eliminate the Old Testament as God's Word. I doubt the above mentioned well-meaninged anti-education speaker would discount the Old Testament, but probably doesn't realize that the whole 39 books point to Christ.
The book of Revelation has so many symbolic numbers pertaining to the 4 corners of the Earth, the 3 members of the Trinity, the 12 apostles and tribes of Israel, the completeness of 7 and 12, and the incomplete number of the anti-Christ (that triple-digit number that many think is the number of the head demon).
How often doesn't Christ mentioning counting the cost of following him? I'm sure one could find numerous references to math in the Bible.
Wow, I've gone on far too long with so many more references to think of.
Hopefully, Mr. Jehle will find the links between the Fibonacci sequence and the created world. See http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html for some interesting parallels between creation and math. Non-Christian Coincidence?
Thank you Mr. Jehle for bringing up the topic. I feel pretty good about math - again.
Posted by: taco40 | August 10, 2006 9:51 AM
Mark, (and any other critic of mathematical/historical proof)
I really do not have the time to spend blogging to help someone who doesn't want to do the research to learn all sides of an argument. I will give a little more information for thought.
1. The Old Testament(Torah) was education and prophecy of the New Testament.
2. There are over 150 very specific and 150 not quite as specific prophecies about the acts of Jesus. (Please, do not insult me with retoric about the authenticity of early documents and cultural practices, because they are a matter of history and hard evidencs. If you deny these then you have simply chosen not to believe anything that does not support your arguement).
3. Next take the probabilities that any one of these could have happened to a particular person. ie. A leader(king) has professed his leadership by riding into a particular town riding on the back of a young donkey on a particular day(holiday). Example: 1 of 1000 leaders have done this (not likely, use your own numbers that you are comfortable with).
4. Then do this for all 300 prophecies and calculate the probabilities.
5. Finally, compare the number to Planks' constnt which is a scientific number of impossibility of chance.
There are other methods, but this one is simple for anyone who isn't fond of much research.
For a more theoretical/scientific approach and if you are familiar with some of the more contemporary theories of physics (they are amazing in their scope and impact). Then compare some of the actions of God and/or Jesus with these multidimensional ideas. I simply do not have time to give an education on these. They will require some effort on your part.
For the Mystics out there. Imagine a collection of books written over thousands of years by cultures that have no knowledge about the practices of cultures thousands of years later and perfectly forshadow these evfents. I have countless examples of these. One example, should you make the effort is Isaiah 53. The description is of abuse that was not even invented for millenia.
If anyone is interested (do not want to complain), let me know at gijodi2jb@netscape.net
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 10:15 AM
Joe:
Spare me.
As I've pointed out numerous times on this blog, *there is no scientific number for the impossibility of chance*. That's bullshit.
The "prophecies" are all things that are incredibly open to interpretation - they only appear amazing because we've had people for 2000 years trying to find "miraculous" fulfillment of prophecies.
Try looking at the "Jews for Judaism" website for your wonderful Isaiah prophecy. If you actually read the text, you find that (a) it doesn't describe anything in great specificity - there is *nothing* in the actual text that describes "abuse that was not invented for millenia:"; (b) the book of Isaiah doesn't predate Jesus by "millenia"; and (c) much of the argument about Jesus fulfilling it is based on sloppy translations of the hebrew.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 10:42 AM
Mark,
This is getting trite.
Plancks constant IS used by theoretical scientists to determine whether or not an experiment should be run and the validity of that experiment to have affirmative results by chance. The number is 6.626x10-34 just in case you were interested in the information.
One prophecy being fullfilled could be fabricated or misconstrewed, however when over 300 are fullfilled by the same person pointing to a specific person, then it gains some credability. Apparently it wasn't worth the effort for you to play around with the math AT ALL!
Thirdly; you have my apologies for my overexuberance in the time that Isaiah was written. The time was between 800 and 400 BC. I was excited.
Finally, I am familiar with "Jews for Judaism" site. The Hebrew scolars that I am relying on, who date around the Christian era (100 BC to 300 AD to be more specific) have some differences of oppinion. Only one example which will typify my point is: The individual on the "Jews for Judaism" site show Isaiah 53:5 as53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities." There is NO indication of this in the original text. nasa' is used here in the perfect tense and means to bear, lift up, endure with the primitive root being Qal. Chashab is used next to mean esteem, value, requard and is also used in the perfect tense with roots of Qal and Niphal. I simply do not see any negatives here. But maybe I and the scholars of the day still have something to learn.
Do the math.
Check the math!
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 11:34 AM
You can't mathematically critique and argument whose basic error isn't mathematical. There's no way to do the math if the necessary elements of the math are gibberish. These "prophecies" are not specific; they're a mishmash of mistranslations, retrofitted events, hearsay, and nonsense. To pretend that you can prove anything from them mathematically is the height of nonsense.
For more about the prophecy bullshit and what's wrong with it, see my post at http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/fundie_probability_even_worse.php
For the stupidity of "If it's less likely than 10-34 that means it's impossible", see
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/dishonest_dembskithe_universal_1.php. (As an aside, you guys need to get together and decide what the hell your "impossibility" limit is; I've seen arguments ranging from 10^23 to 10^160. Why is it that you can't even agree on something as simple as that?)
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 11:56 AM
Thanks for the links,
I think everyone should take a look at the first and the second, unfortunatly would not come up. You call it gibberish but you haven't addressed any one of the more specific "Christian" translational errors. Good try though.
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 12:07 PM
Punctuation and links don't mix well. Delete the period at the end of the sentence with the link, and it'll work.
I'm not going to address the translation errors. I try to make a point to sticking to what I know. I'm not an expert on biblical hebrew. I do know enough about it to know just how appallingly bad some of the translations are; and given that, I'm not particularly inclined to trust christian authorities when they're pontificating about the correct way to translate hebrew. (The most canonical translation error is the whole almah/betulah error; there are dozens of subtler ones. Hebrew word forms do not have a one-to-one correspondence with english word forms; hebrew words have many more "voices/senses" than english words; the conjugation of a verb in hebrew can have significantly different meanings based on voice - for example, taking the english verb "to write", hebrew has voice conjugations for "to write", "to be written", "to cause to be written", "to dictate for someone else to write", "to be dictated for someone else to write", "to write to another person", "to be written to another person", "to cause to be written to another person", and several others.)
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 12:24 PM
From just the quote, it is not clear that he's saying Math is bad because its unchristian. It can be taken many ways (as seen from some of the posts) but to me it would appear he has a point - he's taking a secular course from a Christian college. Questioning why a Christian college should have secular courses does not make him a lunatic or nut job. Courses at a Christian college very well could be classified as Christian or unchristian - the only implication of unchristian being bad has been through comments here. I do not believe he said he should throw away math, and anything not immediately derived from Christianity as most of the comments would suggest. But I don't have any context as I do not have any clue who James Kennedy is, nor have I read where the quote in this blog came from.
I think he has a good point really, because physists etc with degrees from 'Christian' schools are automatically looked down upon in forums like this - even though they may have a very similar education in secular subject matter. It is more a shame since they are not going to Christian colleges to get less of an education, but to get more than what is offered at secular colleges.
Posted by: Chris | August 10, 2006 12:47 PM
Chris:
I'll accept that he's not saying that math is evil; that's a bit of deliberate hyperbole. But on the underlying point, that he believes that there's something wrong with math taught simply *as math*, there I disagree with you.
If you look at the quote *in context* - consider what he's arguing, the point of the talk where he tells this story - he's saying that the college he went to, which claimed to be a christian college - was *not* really christian. This story he tells *as evidence* that the school was not really christian. His calculus class was *a bad* math class, an *inappropriate* math class for a christian college, because it taught *calculus*, without any theology mixed in.
If classes at a christian college are only appropriate if they teach every subject in the context of theology, then people with degrees from those schools *deserve* to be looked down on. A normal 3-credit college calculus class barely has time to cover basic calculus. If they need to spend part of every class inventing and discussing some bizzare connection between the actual math topic and christian theology, then they simply are not going to have the time to adequately cover the math. And when it comes to exam time, if the exams have to include the theology, then they won't even have time to adequately *test* the students on the math.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 1:15 PM
In Christian belief, God created the world. He created all of nature and all its laws...mathematics is found everywhere in nature if you look closely and begin to analyze it...therefore, if you study mathematics you are studying nature, which is the work of God. Now isn't that Christian??
So what if the number 0 was discovered by a Hindu and algebra by Muslims...if anything, their discoveries (Note that I say discoveries, NOT inventions, because mathematics was always there, it just needed to be discovered) reinforced our Christianity, because it allowed us to closer study the creations of God. Why would God have gone through all the trouble of creating the complex laws of nature (mathematics, physics, biology, etc.) if he didn't want us to discover them and rejoice in them?
Of course, this is all simply my personal opinion. :)
Posted by: Kenia | August 10, 2006 1:24 PM
Joe, sean, taco40;
You are all begging the question. Why is the natural world or parts of it examples of a gods work? You aren't answering that.
Specifically on science as a method, it is secular since it is a tool. Anyone can use it, even religious people.
But while science as a method is secular, and science started out with no apriori assumptions, it has picked up some aposteriori knowledge. The design argument you use is seen as vacuous since it is useless - see the discussion on ID at talkorigin. And cosmological and teleological arguments on origins are seen as vacuous since we have ideas of cosmologies that do without - you must first show that these natural ideas doesn't work to have a point.
Joe:
"I am a devoted Christian/mathematician/physicist"
The incoherent math and physics you show doesn't seem to support this.
For example when you claim "Plancks constant IS used by theoretical scientists to determine whether or not an experiment should be run and the validity of that experiment to have affirmative results by chance".
This isn't any principle I recognise being mentioned ever. Theoretical physicist may propose experiments, but it's the experimentalists who design, run and help analyse the experiment. Experiments runs against firm limits. For example, physicists mention 5 sigma to verify a new phenomena and 3 sigma to verify a new theory.
It wasn't until I read Mark's comment, that I realised what you might be discussing. To quote Wikipedia: "The idea that events with fantastically small, but positive probabilities, are effectively negligible[3]was discussed by the French mathematician Émile Borel primarily in the context of cosmology and statistical mechanics.[4] However, there is no widely accepted scientific basis for claiming that certain positive values are universal cutoff points for effective negligibility of events. Borel, in particular, was careful to point out that negligibility was relative to a model of probability for a specific physical system.[5]" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound )
Since Dembski is the only one mentioning (but failing to use meaningfully) a universal probability bound, it seems likely you are a creationist. And since it seems very unlikely that you are a professional "mathematician/physicist" both on the credit here and on the unusual combination, I have to ask:
Are you lying for Jesus?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 10, 2006 2:09 PM
IF you want "THE TRUTH", THEN:
http://www.Bayith-YHVH.org
For EN-"samples":
a. 'Christ' comes from THE 'HINDU' 'Krishna' --- pronounced as 'Krista'!
Even 'Messiah' does NOT = "Mâshîyach"!
b. 'Jesus' was NOT implemented until 1881!
The "HEBREW"-speaking "Mother" and "Father"
named their "SON":
"YâHH-HôVSHêä'!"! --- "YâHH IS (My) Saviour!"!
Do YOU want more?!
Can YOU take it!?
For EN-"sample": 'Romans' 1:18 about 'those' who
SUPPRESS "THE TRUTH" IN NON-"RIGHT"-EOUS-
NESS!!!
Posted by: YirmeYaHH | August 10, 2006 5:32 PM
In three words: Porn star numerology!!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2006 6:30 PM
Sorry I was gone for a while; had things to do.
Torbjorn,
Let me answer a few of your concerns about me. I am not a physicist by trade, I am an applied organic chemist and enjoy physics as a serious hobby because of some of the friendships that I keep with physicists. I need to try to keep up. They DO happen to use probabilities as parameters in formulating theory. It is also a wonderful way of assessing real-world human events considering that humans are not nearly as precise as science/God. As far as me being a creationist? Yes, sort of. I am more of a gap theorist. The union of science and creation is astounding. String and membrane theory are amazing. I must confess that I am not proficient with the math yet I am working on it.
I do recomend that if you want to question my sincerity (lying for Jesus?) contemplate the amount of space and time that it would take to fully explain the depth of the Hebrew language and culture, the impact of theoretical quantum physics, and the calculated statistics of Jewish/Christian history to someone who uses "bullshit" as part of their primary vocabulary.
Doesn't seem feesable, does it?
See ya.
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 9:02 PM
Joe:
It's a convenient copout to say that since I called something "bullshit", it's obvious that there's no point in talking to me.
But the fact remains that you continually demonstrate that you have *no* grasp of the math that you're talking about. And if you don't understand math - then there is no way that you understand theoretical quantum physics. (That's even assuming that anyone *really* understands quantum physics; there's a great quote that's attributed to Feynman which says something like "Anyone who isn't baffled by quantum mechanics doesn't understand it".
And I don't particularly need to have *Jewish* culture and history explained to me. As a practicing religious Jew, I'm quite aware of my own history and culture - not to mention familiar with how it's misrepresented by christians.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 10, 2006 9:25 PM
Mark,
Let me first apologize to you. It is unlike me to attack anyone elses abilities. I did catch me off guard for someone to say that I was "lying for Jesus". Actually I very rarely blog. We will have to agree to dis-agree about our beliefs. I have been trying to give very simple examples of my points because of the broad audience that participates. I admire your history, culture, and heritage more than you know. The flavor and depth of the Hebrew language is staggering. It lends evidence to the idea that human culture is deteriorating because no other language (in my opinion) can compare, not even the Greek which also has it's intricacies.
Now for the rest of the discussion; I do know what I know about your culture, language, probabilities, statistics, scripture (Torah and NT), and quantum physics. There are many in this world that understand MUCH more than me. For me to even think that I fully understand the thing that frustrated Einstein on his death bead because he could not encapsulate it, is silly. The concepts, the math(partially), and the implications, I DO have a grasp on.
My apologies if I have offended anyone in this group. I do not want to be one of the Christians that founded this discussion.
God Bless
Posted by: Joe | August 10, 2006 9:44 PM
Joe:
I give you merits for backing down from the implied claim of being a professional "mathematician/physicist".
"I am more of a gap theorist."
Perhaps. But you use concepts that are specific of the form of creationism that is ID. ID is so far scientifically vacuous, and so has all of its concepts been. (And it is making antiscientific religious claims.) So in a discussion about math and science you need to be careful. UPB has not been shown to be useful within science but is on the contrary thought to be against the usual procedure of letting theory and experiments set specific limits on effective negligibility.
"String and membrane theory"
Here you go again. That is "string theory" or "brane theory" or "M theory" or "string/M theory" or possibly "brane/M theory". Strings are now known to be wrapped branes, but the name has stuck.
"if you want to question my sincerity"
No. I questioned your veracity. But at this time you have mooted my point.
See ya later, I'm sure.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 11, 2006 11:46 AM
I noticed that a couple of posters muttered specifically about American "christianity". A good friend of mine who's just graduated from God-bothering school thinks that American christianity is in fact an entirely different religion from Christianity. This Jehle idiot, when compared to - say, Isaac Barrow, priest, teacher of Newton, and first Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge - seems to make his point really rather elegantly.
Posted by: David Cantrell | August 11, 2006 6:22 PM
Torbjörn:
I already dealt with the canard that Newton and Leibniz were not Christians on my blog, so I won't reinvent the wheel here.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien | August 13, 2006 5:43 PM
Not to be a pedant, but I thought that was Bohr.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien | August 13, 2006 5:46 PM
ROFL
Posted by: Robert O'Brien | August 13, 2006 5:47 PM
@Robert O'Brien:
While I do not know for certain what Bohr did or did not say, the remark about nobody understanding quantum mechanics is definitely Feynman. It occurs in The Character of Physical Law, among other places.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 13, 2006 6:18 PM
From Griffiths Intro to Quantum Mechanics:
Niels Bohr said, "If you are not confused by quantum physics then you haven't really understood it"; Richard Feynman remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
I have not made recourse to the primary sources to check Griffiths' attributions, but as this is the 2nd edition of his text I should think his colleagues would have corrected him if he misattributed these quotations.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien | August 13, 2006 7:17 PM
It is really Hindu Mathematics :-)
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Projects/Pearce/index.html
Posted by: Viv | August 18, 2006 3:02 AM