# The Spike [or Victoria University College Review 1961]

# The Argument

###
*The Argument*

Let us deal first with the postulate 'God is freer than the Mathematician'. Now the philosophy `Mathematics' is *completely* free since the Mathematician can comprehend *any* concept, with the sole proviso that the concept be *self-consistent*. (We dismiss as irrelevant the fact that this is not always demonstrable.) Furthermore, although Mathematics comprizes only formal systems, it is not for that matter a formal system itself; the logical manifold of Mathematics is an *open* one, since the Mathematician is Free to conceive of any formal system at all. So, 'Freedom to create Form
page 36
within the bounds of consistency '— that is the philosophy of Mathematics. Therefore if God *were* freer than the Mathematician He would necessarily possess the attribute of inconsistency. This, by general, agreement, is not one of His properties. Even God cannot comprehend a 'square circle' ! We have now eliminated the first postulate, leaving 'God is as free as the Mathematician', and 'God is less free than the Mathematician 'as remaining possibilities.

Now if the former is true, then there is an identical relation between Religion and Mathematics, and Religion is trivially true. For example, if the relation : 'God is infinity' (so often propounded by the Theologians) is in fact an *identity*, that is, God is one-and-the-same-thing as infinity, then the denotation 'God' is superfluous — just an unnecessary word in our vocabulary. Again we hear 'God is the Form of the Universe'; but so is Space-Time (to be pronounced very quickly with the words run together). Once again — redundancy.

Since we have eliminated two of the possibilities, we conclude that the remaining one alone is correct ('The Mathematician is freer than God '). We are therefore led to the Important conclusion: *The Religious system is more restricted than the Mathematical one*. God, in other words, is no longer a Generality, He is a Special Case. The interested reader may wish to note the error on page 2 of *The Pious Scientist, by* J. K. Feibleman, where it says 'There is nothing that can be said about a religion which cannot be said in it' — which, as Bertrand Russell would say, is a sheer mistake!

Unfortunately, the above argument is symmetrical in the terms God and The Mathematician. That is so say, if we interchanged these terms (with a few trivial alterations) we would have to draw the opposite conclusion. For example, 'God equals infinity' *could* imply that the word Infinity is superfluous. In order to assert that our argument alone is correct we must justify the crucial statement 'the Mathematician is completely free'. A quotation from J. D'Abro's book *The Evolution of Scientific Thought*, p. 455, should make this clear: 'Whereas the real space in Physics appears to possess a definite metrics and structure, the geometrical space of mathematics is amorphous. It possesses no intrinsic metrics, no special geometry, no size, and no shape, and the geometry which the mathematician credits to this space *is purely a matter of choice*.'

The whole point is this: what the Mathematician does *not* say is 'I wonder if N-Dimensional space exists'. What he *does* say is 'Let N-Dimensional space exists!' He puts *himself*, as it were, in the role of creator. He has no sooner to deliver the injunction: 'Let imaginary numbers exist!' than i's and z's bearing humble but tenacious smiles appear on his pages. 'May all circles intersect' he cries, and I's and J's in order to their stations leap.

If Therese Desqueyroux, as Sartre tells us, was free to say 'No', then the Mathematician is free to say 'Yes'. This, to use Sartre's phrase, is true *Cartesian freedom*, 'infinite, nameless, and without destiny'. He must have had wonderful mathematical insight to use such an expressive phrase; one can immediately see the X, Y and Z axes stretching off to infinity, defining the boundless field of possibilities which is the subject-matter of Mathematics.

It is a great pity that Descartes himself said, 'You ask who obliged God to create these truths, and I say He was as free to make all the lines drawn from the centre to the circumference not equal, as not to create the world.' (To prove the absurdity of this, all we need do is ask Descartes to define the word 'circumference'.)

One objection to this argument is 'But surely since the Mathematician cannot *create* these N-Dimensional spaces in a *physical* form, this "freedom" of his is quite imaginary'. But the objection is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is a comparison between the mind of the Mathematician and the mind of God. The Thesis of Reality is merely used as a link between Ourselves and our inference of God's existence: there is no need to give it more importance than that.

A final point which illustrates the utter confusion in the minds of most Theologians is that involving God, Unity and Beauty. 'God is associated with Unity', i.e. with all the physical laws, they say. So far so good. But what if the Laws of Science reveal a greater and greater degree of ugliness and chaos, as for example the Gas Laws do? We might go further and say What guarantee is there that the laws of Physics will be unified?' After all, the Principle of Gauge Invariance suggested by the mathematician Hermann Weyl is a unique opportunity to unify the main equations of Science, but is simply not realized in practice. So surely Wevl's mind is superior to that of God's? One is forced to conclude, as Hume did, that this Universe is a botched attempt at world making.

The last loophole of the Theologist is Mysticism. 'What about Faith, Love and other intangible, non-logical concepts?' he asks. 'Are we not justified in developing religion as an apotheosis of these qualities?' The answer is 'no' as shown by the following argument.