Nachtwolf

Oh, that's a shame; I let this sit for a few days, but there's been only one response.

I doubt this; can you cite a source? Considering the famous mathematical precocity of the ancient Greeks, they would have had to be preternaturally brilliant to have made the advances which they did even while acting under prohibitions. According to Arthur Jensen's The g Factor, Galton did estimate the Athenians to be two mental "grades" above the British norm (or roughly 120 IQ in more modern terms) but I believe he made this estimate on the basis of their accomplishments.

All too true; in fact the information at my disposal suggests that those majoring in math and science tend towards not only religious belief but fundamentalist styles of religious belief:

Religion, Science, and Rationality

Field / % Religious
Math-statistics 60%
Physical Sciences 55%
Life Sciences 55%
Social Sciences 45%
Economics 50%
Political Science 51%
Sociology 49%
Psychology 33%
Anthropology 29%

(For the full table and discussion, see the URL)


Fundamentalism and Liberalism:
towards an understanding of the dichotomy

There are also some similarities between what psychologists call the convergent style of thinking and fundamentalism while divergent thinking corresponds with liberalism. Convergent thinking focuses down from the general to the particular, dissecting and analysing. It prizes rational, deductive thought and aims towards certainty. It tends to be found among certain types of scientists and engineers in particular. Interestingly, we find that when scientists (especially from the physical sciences) and engineers become religious, they often tend towards fundamentalist religion.

I don't think you're an atheist, Zenir, because your position as stated here is more consistent with an Agnostic stance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the philosophical and theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown or inherently unknowable.

I am myself a proud Agnostic.


Yes, I was thinking that a problem distinguishing between these two things seems to underlie this thread. Mathematics is logical/deductive, whereas science is empirical/inductive. Things like "certainty," "exactitude," and "proof" do not exist within the realm of science.


Never have I understood why anyone should want to claim this. Finity is easily more difficult to comprehend, as it possesses a limit. Infinity by definition has no limit, and therefore has less to comprehend. Isn't it easier to understand nothing than it is to understand something?


--Mark