Talk:Mathematics and God

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Restore to article, 31 December 2022, see discussion.
Merge to Existence of God, 4 March 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, 22 December 2006, see discussion.
Keep, 7 August 2005, see discussion.

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

This article is hurting for a NPOV 12.222.110.10 04:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Remove NPOV? Remove Topic? Change Title?

I don't exactly agree with the label "NPOV"; it could just be an article about mathematicians who claimed they could prove the existence of God (or gods). On the other hand, if this article is simply about all of the mathematicians who voiced opinions on God (or gods), I question the purpose of this topic in the first place. Not only could (and should) the theological opinions of the mathematicians be kept on their own pages, but the argument can be made that the existence of such a specific page is not only superficial but encourages the creation of other such pages of "theological beliefs of celebrities"... Then we'd get topics like Serial Killers and God and Tom Cruise. Also note that I continuously follow the term 'God' by paranthetically including 'gods.' I'm sure there were a couple of pagan mathematicians who said something about their own deities, and therefore, if there actually was as valid reason for an NPOV tag, it would be that. If you find yourselves at a loss to collect quotes/opinions on the lack of proof/existence of God from mathematicians, check out this site and search for various mathematicians (e.g. Einstein.) --24.126.30.46 07:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics or Mathematicians?

The article reads more like Mathematicians and God. Also, it currently lacks NPOV. -- Sundar 10:28, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I concur; though I'd also like to make it allow for the theological opinions of pagans. --24.126.30.46 07:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicians and God

I agree with Sundar on this one, definitely reads as mathematicians and God. Page should also include a reference to Einstein's critique of Quantum Mechanics based on his belief that God does not play dice with the universe. I wonder what he would have thought about string theory! - Matthew Bolduc

NPOV

Added NPOV template. Four people now have mentioned the POV of this article.--metta, The Sunborn 06:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the POV tag... "mathematics indicates that God exists, as proven by the famous mathmaticians below" is POV. This article is mainly a collection of religious quotes by mathmaticians. How would the supposed POV be balanced out... a collection of quotes from mathmaticians discussing the absence of God? Feco 21:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...exactly, if you have one side saying that god exists then you must have the other side's view. Plus the quotes mostly have to go. Wikiquote is the repository of quotes, verified and unferified. An article should have no more than two quotes in it.--metta, The Sunborn 03:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanujan

The Ramanujan quotes are hard to believe. Can anyone comment on their authenticity? SpuriousQ 01:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to come from here (http://www.sastra.edu/speech/president.htm), perhaps they are true then. I am still skeptical though. The 2^n-1 thing seems especially silly. SpuriousQ 22:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is still bugging me. I added two sources to the article that have those quotes, but it looks like one plagiarized the other and neither cite primary sources. Thus I'll add "disputed" to the section. SpuriousQ 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to finally remove the Ramanujan quotes from the article and place them in talk. I can find no primary sources for them, and they just do not sound like how a mathematician would speak. Here is the content:

According to Srinivasa Ramanujan, "an equation is meaningless to me unless it expresses a thought of God." He often said that in Mathematics alone, one can have a concrete realisation of God. 0/0, he used to ask, "what is its value?" It may be anything. "The zero of the numerator may be several times the zero of denominator and vice versa. The value cannot be determined. In the same way 2ⁿ − 1 will denote the primordial God and several divinities. When n is zero the expression denotes zero, there is nothing; when n is 1, the expression denotes unity, the Infinite God. When n is 2, the expression denotes Trinity; when n is 3, the expression denotes 7, the Saptha Rishis (Seven Sages of Ursa Major) and so on.

Here are the only sources I found for them:

Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam's address at the International Conference on "Number Theory for Secure Communications". At the Srinivasa Ramanujan Centre, SASTRA, Kumbakonam, 20 December 2003.
"Number and Spirit", by Dr. Ragina Clark.

--SpuriousQ 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed quite genuine to me (Ramanujan is not your standard mathematician), so I had a look and found them in his biography (apart from 0/0). Hence I put them back in, with the reference. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, great job finding that! That bio sounds interesting; I'll have a look. --SpuriousQ 09:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFD debate link

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justify edits

KSmrq, can you please justify these edits you made to Mathematics and God? I'm particularly wondering why you removed the Hardy tidbit about rain.

FYI: the "minor edit" tag should generally only be used for purely prose edits, see Wikipedia:Minor edit. You also shouldn't delete content without explanation (unless its patent nonsense, etc).

SpuriousQ 02:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the minor edit tag is a mistake for this edit; my apologies. (I think it started as clearly minor and I forgot to untick. More often I make the opposite mistake, and forget to tick "minor".) For the two changes:

Hardy and rain is fun and interesting, but off-topic for this page (not mathematical), unlike the Riemann bit. There is a full article on Hardy, as on all the mathematicians named here, and it would be nice there. (Also, links to MacTutor are found on most of them; it makes little sense to put one just for Hardy on this page.)
On the Erdős page and everywhere else I've looked, the compendium of beautiful theorems is always called "The Book". In my web searching I have come across just one isolated reference to a "transfinite Book" (with no citation, but perhaps from Halmos), compared to the many anecdotes and quotations about "The Book". Consider the following statement from a talk Erdős gave at Hampshire College, as quoted by Joel Spencer in AMS Notices of January 1998:
In the summer of 1985 I drove Paul to what many of us fondly remember as Yellow Pig Camp—a mathematics camp for talented high school students at Hampshire College. It was a beautiful day. The students loved Uncle Paul, and Paul enjoyed nothing more than the company of eager young minds. In my introduction to his lecture I discussed The Book, but I made the mistake of describing it as being “held by God”. Paul began his lecture with a gentle correction that I shall never forget. “You don’t have to believe in God,” he said, “but you should believe in The Book.”

Therefore I believe the page is improved by omitting Hardy's umbrella and by including Erdős's phrase "The Book". I have amended the sentence to include transfinite in a manner I hope you will find satisfactory. The article would be improved even more by expanding the diversity of voices, a request which has been largely unheeded. --KSmrq^T 06:38, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Sounds right, thanks for the explanation. Personally, I feel the Riemann bit doesn't really have to do with mathematics either, but it's not a matter I feel strongly about. However, I would like a citation for the Riemann bit (we really need references for a lot of these quotes/stories). I'd originally added MacTutor because they mentioned it, but further web searching reveals a possibly better source: Polya is apparently quoted telling the story in a book called Out of the Mouths of Mathematicians. I will add it as a reference once I get a chance to verify (not sure when that would be; if someone would like to add it themselves, please do). SpuriousQ 03:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God as human invention section

The only quote relating to mathematics and God in this section would possibly be Bertrand Russell, since it speaks of probabilities. But the others are irrelevant, unless I'm mistaken. Can someone clarify this for me? I'm not sure why the other quotes are there. Thanks. --FranksValli 09:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. In fact, I think, Russell's comment is irrelevant also. I think the section should be removed all together. The whole article is a mess. So if agreed, somebody should remove this section.Delmet 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I'm not sure why this article is up for deletion, it just needs to be rewritten. I think the topic is valid, it's just not a proper encyclopedia article yet. Deleting it would be a waste. I'm going to remove the deletion tag unless someone explains why it should be deleted. --Calibas 18:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calibas, the article's possible deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematics and God (2nd nomination). You are welcome to join the discussion there. According to deletion policy (see WP:DELETE), this tag should remain on the article until the deletion discussion is finished, so please don't remove it. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 18:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

It seems to me that in the 2nd AfD, the informed editors mostly wished to get rid of this article, while "random keep voters" mistakenly thought that it is about Einstein, Dawkins and science vs. religion. This gives me an idea: Let us make it redirect to Relationship between religion and science. What do you think about it?--Ioannes Pragensis 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure that's the best idea. I think deletion review might be doable. --C S (Talk) 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Mathematics and religion article would have some merit. If you really want to get rid of this page just create it and suggest a merge. Otherwise I'm suggesting that we move the lists of quotes to the talk page and turn this article into a stub. --Calibas 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I stubbified it. No need to keep the quotes here, they are in the history of the page. I propose to merge it to the article Existence of God, because all the rest after deletion of the quotes belongs here.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current page looks ok; it's clear what the scope is. Unfortunately, the title should be more like "Mathematical proofs of the existence of God". I have no objection to merging it to Existence of God. That seems more appropriate. --C S (Talk) 09:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]