Mathematics Professors Wanted – Believers Need Not Apply.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.

Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”

Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.

Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.

What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”

Why This Is Important

It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.

The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.

Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.

Sources:

1. New Scientist, “Review: How Mathematicians Think” by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.

2. “How Mathematicians Think”, by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

“This ‘scientific research’ defies common sense!” Have you ever found yourself saying this after reading a “scientific” study, which makes an incredible claim such as, “porn is good for marital health,” or “there is no link between abortion and depression?” Have you noticed that “scientific research” with questionable results or conclusions seems to be on the rise? Have you read conclusions that do not appear to be justified by the “proof” given? If you have, you are not alone.

Recently there have been a number of high profile scandals involving bogus research findings. These have spanned the world and have covered every field from genetics to the disappearance from public view of the UN’s purported “Smoking Gun” of “Global Warming” - the now discredited and vanished “Hockey Stick.” However, these scandals are just the tip of the iceberg.

On September 14, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Most Science Studies Appear to be Tainted by Sloppy Analysis.” This article was based on the work of Dr. John Ioannidis of Tufts University. In Ioannidis’s provocative article, “Why Most Research Findings Are False,” he makes an even stronger case for skepticism of “scientific research.”

Dr. Ioannidis’s findings show that over half of all scientific research is seriously flawed and therefore not valid. Very often these flaws involve using the wrong mathematical tools, misapplying them, or inappropriate handling of data. While sloppiness is a major factor in false research, there are far more powerful motives for falsifying or misinterpreting research. These include money and, most importantly, “bias.”

Not surprisingly, a large amount of academic funding is dependent upon the results of research. If your funding comes from the National Education Association, your research on the academic success of parochial schools is not likely to show or emphasize the fact that parochial schools consistently out perform public schools at half the price. If you are a socialist, using environmentalism to advance your economic agenda, your research is not likely to point out that the United States (whose Congress has not ratified the Kyoto protocols) has met the CO2 reductions mandated by Kyoto, while most of the nations that have ratified the treaty have not met their mandated reductions.

Very often these “false research findings” are spin. A leading example is the failure of hundreds of genetic studies that aimed to bolster the Darwinian Tree of Life model of descent from a common ancestor. The researchers and media rarely mention that these unexpected and contradictory findings are a huge problem for Darwinism. The results are duplicitously spun and reported as being consistent with the Darwinian paradigm.

Why This Is Important

A few years ago DDT was banned based on research now universally acknowledged to be incorrect. The ban resulted in millions of unnecessary malarial deaths (mostly children) worldwide. Bogus research can also have disastrous social consequences. Margaret Mead’s studies of sexual freedom in South Pacific Islanders, including her book, “Coming of Age in Samoa,” are used to rationalize and to promote sexual promiscuity. Yet, it is widely acknowledged in the current anthropological literature that her findings were total fiction.

Be very skeptical of what you read and believe is supported by “scientific research,” especially if you are going to quote or act on it. Check to see who did the work, who funded it, where it was published, and what the agendas were of all involved. Read the details: was the data cropped, were the statistical tools appropriate, were the truly relevant questions even asked, was the question framed to produce the result desired? Very often you will find that even when the research has been done properly, the analysis may not support the conclusion as claimed.

Consequently, if research flies in the face of your common sense, it probably is false.

Source: Public Library Of Science: Medicine v.2(8); Aug. 2005.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.