What is the Difference Between Studying Theology and Studying Mathematics?

Turtwig

Questions asks it all.
Personally, I'm a little confused at the moment and not really seeing any difference in either discipline. Both deal with investing time studying subject matter that might not actually exist and that we might not ever fully understand. Yet we study them both extensively anyway. Obviously from a Pragmatic viewpoint mathematics appears more useful, but I'm not the kind who thinks what subject,discipline,knowledge or science to study should be decided on pragmatic grounds. And a religious person would probably argue theology is more pragmatic. So, yeah, I'm confused, how does Theology differ from Mathematics.

Go on do your worst!:)

Mathematics works and theology doesn't?

I think I know where you're coming from. Both fields take certain axioms or truths as their basis, and work deductively from there to draw conclusions. (This is pretty weak on theology's side, though.) You're wondering why we should take these axioms as truth?

From a pragmatic point of view there's no comparison. Mathematics works, especially when applied to scientific fields. I'm not sure what genuinely pragmatic use theology has, in and of itself.

If you dig to the level you're at you begin to get very philosophical. You could dig to this level about anything, I think.

You have to start from somewhere; you can't pull yourself up by your own shoelaces. Mathematics starts with axioms. But from there it can express and represent real truth, unlike theology.

mikhail

Malty_T wrote: »

...Obviously from a Pragmatic viewpoint mathematics appears more useful, but I'm not the kind who thinks what subject,discipline,knowledge or science to study should be decided on pragmatic grounds.

Removing pragmatic reasons, what are we left to judge with? How fun they are? Intellectual challenge? I'll go with the guy:girl ratio.

eoin5

You can go deep into assigning philosophical meaning to maths (and be dead wrong, like Plato) but I think its better as a handy tool we use to do pretty much everything. I dont think you can describe Theology as a handy tool.

Hobbes

Malty_T wrote: »

Both deal with investing time studying subject matter that might not actually exist

Math exists. What are going on about?

Pygmalion

If you're going to say "The fact that one is infinitely more useful than the other can't be brought up" then I'm not entirely sure what you're going for with this thread.

For the record though, I wouldn't say Maths is studying something which "might not exist".
It's studying something which definitely doesn't exist, at least in any kind of non-intellectual form, but which we have defined (through axioms) and can use to represent problems that do exist.

Of course that's a pragmatic answer still, you seem to be asking "If we refuse to acknowledge the entire reason for the existence of Mathematics, what makes it different to Theology?"

AhSureTisGrand

One of them acknowledges that its subject exists only inside the mind

Kevin Bacon

Biggest difference i would say is results and theories deviated from mathematics are repeatable and demonstrable from within the confines of the discipline and results are absolute given the correct application of it. Theology cant give such irrefutable results or explanations and has a more fuzzy logic to it seeing as its almost entirely qualitative.

smk89

One allows you to earn a good wage and have a prestigious career.
The other an interesting way to enter a career in tesco

CoalBucket

You need a calculator for maths

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

how does Theology differ from Mathematics.

In maths, you need a pencil, paper and a rubbish bin. In theology, you just need the pencil and paper.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Questions asks it all.
Personally, I'm a little confused at the moment and not really seeing any difference in either discipline. Both deal with investing time studying subject matter that might not actually exist and that we might not ever fully understand. Yet we study them both extensively anyway. Obviously from a Pragmatic viewpoint mathematics appears more useful, but I'm not the kind who thinks what subject,discipline,knowledge or science to study should be decided on pragmatic grounds. And a religious person would probably argue theology is more pragmatic. So, yeah, I'm confused, how does Theology differ from Mathematics.

Go on do your worst!:)

This works on the falls assumption that studying things that "exist" is the only usual thing to do.

Creative writing doesn't exist, yet this doesn't make the study of it pointless.

The reason theology is actually pointless is that it is defined as such if the theistic entities themselves don't exist. In other words, it is in built into the theology itself that if God isn't real then none of this matters. So theology is useful up to the point that you learn this axiom and very pointless once you do.

Other subjects such as mathematics and creative writing hold no such requirement. There is nothing in mathematics that says such a equation has to relate to a real world entity in order to have a point in studying it.

Theology is ultimately its own harshest critic. If it could find a reason for its existence that doesn't require that it is true then I think it would be far more successfully.

Sarky

Mathematics doesn't hate the gays. Or tell anyone how to do anything, besides making sure you get the right change when you pay for a cuppa.

And then there's all the incredibly handy stuff about modelling some of the most basic processes of reality in clearly defined unambiguous terms that can be repeated. That's quite useful.

kylith

Well, when I was in school the maths teacher always said that it was no use just giving the answers, even if they were right, if we couldn't show how we worked it out, and if the working out didn't make sense then we were in trouble.

In theology you can come up with pretty much any answers you like, and no one really minds if your reasoning isn't logical.

Brussels Sprout

There is an established base of Mathematics that is universally accepted throughout the world. If you're in Dublin, Damascus, Dakar or Dushanbe, and you go and ask someone with a basic level of education what 2+2 is or what is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference then you will receive the same answer.

If you were to then ask people in these cities basic theological questions such as "Is there a creator?" and "what happens when we die?" you would likely receive many different answers.

At the end of the day Mathematics is a very rational subject. It's also very objective. Theology is often neither.

Podge_irl

I have no idea where this (commonly held and highly erroneous) belief that maths studies stuff that doesn't exist comes from.

Turtwig

Podge_irl wrote: »

I have no idea where this (commonly held and highly erroneous) belief that maths studies stuff that doesn't exist comes from.

Well I'm in that camp that think it exists but I guess the question that's asked is if humans didn't exist would there still be maths? Are maths purely a human invention or universal?

Podge_irl

Maths began as the study of shapes. Geometry exists whether we are here or not.

Dave!

Podge_irl wrote: »

Maths began as the study of shapes. Geometry exists whether we are here or not.

If a dodecahedron falls in a forest, and noone is around to hear it, does God exist?

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Are maths purely a human invention or universal?

Not sure what you mean by "universal". But one can argue that a theorem does "exist" before it's written down. Something that's analogous to whether a piece of music "exists" before it's written down -- I incline to the view that it doesn't, and that it's simply implied (for a heavily circumscribed meaning of the word) by notation (or sound) that's implied.

Basically, this argument is a note-based Euthyphro.

raah!

Podge_irl wrote: »

I have no idea where this (commonly held and highly erroneous) belief that maths studies stuff that doesn't exist comes from.

It comes from the fact that naturalists (Not saying this is a tenet of naturalism, but that people who call themselves naturalists often say they ascribe the word real only to measurable physical things) don't generally accept the idealism of Plato or the early numerology of Pythagoras which started this tradition of linking mathematics with idealism.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Maths began as the study of shapes. Geometry exists whether we are here or not.

Plato actually used to use this as an example illustrating the existence of universal forms. He said that there were no actual true circles in nature. There are no pure triangles. Those are ideas (says Plato). But if you think only things we perceive through the senses are real, then those ideal shapes of geometry are not real. That is where the idea that the things maths studies aren't real comes from. First Plato, and then a rejection of his ideas of circles and triangles. Maybe there is something earlier, but if people didn't know about the earlier cases they could build those ideas from there :pac:


One way of interpreting this which attempts to avoid the idealism or the separateness of ideas from reality is just to say that those triangles and lines and **** are empirical axioms. Euclid saw lines and thing and drew them. But I don't think this really solves it. That is just something someone said to me once. That those axioms of geometry are readily available empirical axioms. This is less clear (for me at least, though perhaps they are related to the geometrical case) when it comes to definitions and axioms of algebra addition rules and what have you. There is certainly a difference between an axiom and a definition, but there's obviously a relation between mathematical definitions and axioms. The way matrices are multiplied for example. In fact, in may cases I think the word axiom, when applied to maths, and when applied to anything which says things about the world, are completely different.

If you think only things we perceive through the senses are real, then those ideal shapes of geometry are not real. That is where the idea that the things maths studies aren't real comes from. First Plato, and then a rejection of his ideas of circles and triangles. Maybe there is something earlier, but if people didn't know about the earlier cases they could build those ideas from there :pac:

The difference between maths and theology , or indeed maths or any field of study which purports to use deductive reasoning, would be the particularity of their premises. Mathematics or logic are more about studying the deductive reasoning itself. While theology may also in parts travel deductively from premises to conclusions, the conclusions are perhaps the most important part of the process.