{"id":487,"date":"2007-08-08T19:31:28","date_gmt":"2007-08-08T19:31:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2007\/08\/08\/bad-math-education-math-does-not-need-god\/"},"modified":"2007-08-08T19:31:28","modified_gmt":"2007-08-08T19:31:28","slug":"bad-math-education-math-does-not-need-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2007\/08\/08\/bad-math-education-math-does-not-need-god\/","title":{"rendered":"Bad Math Education: Math does not need God"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> Once upon a time, I wrote about <a href=\"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2006\/08\/math-is-bad-because-it-isnt-christian\">a jackass who was criticizing his college math instructor<\/a>, because the instructor couldn&#8217;t explain what made the calculus class <em>christian<\/em>, or why it was different from what would be taught in a math class at a secular college.<\/p>\n<p> That kind of thinking is quite strong in certain segments of the conservative christian community, and that disgusts me. Let me show you an example, and then I&#8217;ll explain why is annoys me so much. A reader<br \/>\nsend me a link to <a href=\"http:\/\/chfbs.org\/high_school\/high_sch_math.htm\">the math curriculum for a Baptist high school<\/a>, and it seriously bugs me.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p> Here&#8217;s their explanation of a high school geometry class:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\n<b>GEOMETRY<\/b><br \/>\nStudents will examine the nature of God as they progress in their<br \/>\nunderstanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles<br \/>\nand know that God was the inventor of that consistency. They will see God&#8217;s nature revealed in the order<br \/>\nand precision they review foundational concepts while being able to demonstrate geometric thinking and<br \/>\nspatial reasoning. The study of the basics of geometry through making and testing conjectures regarding<br \/>\nmathematical and real-world patterns will allow the students to understand the absolute consistency of God<br \/>\nas seen in the geometric principles he created. Students will demonstrate an awareness of the structure of<br \/>\na mathematical system, connecting definitions, postulates, logical reasoning, and theorems while exploring<br \/>\nattributes of geometric figures. Students will make and verify conjectures about angles, lines, polygons,<br \/>\ncircles, and three-dimensional figures through coordinate and transformational approaches. Through the<br \/>\nknowledge of conditional statements and their converses, constructing and justifying statements about<br \/>\ngeometric figures and their properties, students will begin understanding the concepts of constructing<br \/>\ngeometrical proofs. Students will be able to solve problems with the use of formulas for the areas and<br \/>\nvolumes of polygons and circles while applying them to real-world situations; in addition, they will<br \/>\ndevelop and improve their spatial visualization and reasoning skills with three-dimensional figures. As<br \/>\nthey investigate properties of parallel lines, students will write deductive arguments to justify their<br \/>\nconclusions and apply those properties to real situations. Students will apply their knowledge of triangles<br \/>\nto develop properties of parallelograms, trapezoids, and kites as they continue developing their<br \/>\nmathematical reasoning abilities and their algebraic skills by learning to write coordinate proofs.<br \/>\nRight-triangle trigonometry will be introduced in the area of sine and cosine ratios and vectors. Finally,<br \/>\nstudents will study circles from an algebraic point of view by writing equations of circles in the<br \/>\ncoordinate plane.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> As I&#8217;ve mentioned before, I&#8217;m a religious reconstructionist Jew. I&#8217;m sympathetic to the idea<br \/>\nof religion. So I&#8217;m not just ranting because I dislike religion. What I dislike is the<br \/>\nuse of religion to promote ignorance &#8211; and the perversion of legitimate knowledge to try to<br \/>\nturn it into support for religion.<\/p>\n<p> Math is based on logic. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether you believe in God or not. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether you&#8217;re in our universe, or some radically different one. Math wouldn&#8217;t change. Math is the product of<br \/>\npure abstract reasoning. First order predicate logic will always work in exactly the same way in a universe created by a benificent deity, a universe created by a malevolent deity, a universe created by a gaggle of insane elves, or a universe created by absolutely no one. It doesn&#8217;t matter what you believe. Math is going to be math. A theorem in FOPL will be a theorem in FOPL. No formal system is going to be both complete and consistent. The axiom of choice is going to be independent from the other axioms of set theory.<\/p>\n<p> There are two ways of looking at math. In one of them, basically what I said above, math is a kind of pure and eternal truth. It doesn&#8217;t matter who you are, where you are, what you are: if you start from the same premises, the same things will always be true, and there is <em>nothing<\/em> you can do to make<br \/>\nthem false.<\/p>\n<p> In the other point of view, math is purely a creation of the mind. It&#8217;s one of the only things you can do from first principles. In this point of view, there&#8217;s no way that a deity can affect structure of<br \/>\nmath &#8211; because math is entirely a creation of the mathematician. But once again &#8211; it&#8217;s a pure product<br \/>\nof the mathematicians mind. The mathematician picks a set of axioms and a set of rules of logic, and that defines the kind of math s\/he can do. Without his or her choice of axioms and inference rules, there is no math; and the math is entirely determined by that choice. The existence or non-existence of a deity is completely irrelevant &#8211; whether a deity exists or not, it&#8217;s the axioms and inference rules that make it work.<\/p>\n<p> Studying math isn&#8217;t exploring the nature of God.  Math doesn&#8217;t demonstrate anything about God. God didn&#8217;t make geometry consistent &#8211; geometry is consistent, because it&#8217;s defined from predicate logic with a consistent set of axioms. And that&#8217;s true whether there&#8217;s a God or not. And God <em>couldn&#8217;t<\/em> make<br \/>\ngeometry be inconsistent.<\/p>\n<p> Teaching kids that you can&#8217;t understand math without God is <em>lying<\/em> &#8211; deliberate lying that will<br \/>\n<em>reduce<\/em> students ability to understand math. Just like inserting God into a discussion of physics,<br \/>\nit&#8217;s just introducing irrelevant information that, at best, adds nothing; and at worst, detracts from<br \/>\nthe  students ability and motivation to understand the material.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Once upon a time, I wrote about a jackass who was criticizing his college math instructor, because the instructor couldn&#8217;t explain what made the calculus class christian, or why it was different from what would be taught in a math class at a secular college. That kind of thinking is quite strong in certain segments [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-7R","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/487\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}