Is the following relationship of Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and Religion true?

[Augustus]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

Religion (in the broadest possible sense of the word) must have come first, and philosophy evolved out of it. And despite what some might have you believe, without philosophy then you don't have either mathematics or science. Maths trumps science also.

Can't see anything that stands out as being factually untrue.

Seems to be reasonable enough aphorism, and aphorisms reflect general truths and aren't really supposed to be nitpicked at.

 

[YmirGF]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards

I'd tend to go along with this as it represents human thought becoming clearer or much more refined. Irrational thought (religious revelation) gave way to the more sober structured analysis (philosophy) which branched off into a highly structured modelling environment (mathematics) which, in turn, gave rise to various schools of critical thinking about empirical data (sciences).

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion (in the broadest possible sense of the word) must have come first, and philosophy evolved out of it. And despite what some might have you believe, without philosophy then you don't have either mathematics or science. Maths trumps science also.
Can't see anything that stands out as being factually untrue.
Seems to be reasonable enough aphorism, and aphorisms reflect general truths and aren't really supposed to be nitpicked at.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'd tend to go along with this as it represents human thought becoming clearer or much more refined. Irrational thought (religious revelation) gave way to the more sober structured analysis (philosophy) which branched off into a highly structured modelling environment (mathematics) which, in turn, gave rise to various schools of critical thinking about empirical data (sciences).

Simply wrong.
Thanks for your input, however.
One is requested to attend to the later part "And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here." of the post #1.
Regards

 

[DawudTalut]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards

Peace be on you.
In general you are right.
But if you see from another view:
1=When our universe did not exist, God desired and made it [ through creation and guided evolution - God is Maker since always as His attributes never cease], this very act was science.
2=Latter when human was brought in the scene, revelation was sent to them to have conection with God and how to live pious life; it is religion.......So from this point of view, order may be different.

 

[Yerda]

Certain aspects of Science are a product of Mathematics in terms of Newtionian Mechanics, but Mathamatics has taken on a whole new meaning since Einstien and the development of Quantum Mechanics. Mathamatics has been used defacto as an attempt to establish the existence of the universe and at times more closely resembles philosophy rather than "science" in the way we understand the universe (e.g. multi-verse theorum, dark energy and dark matter, etc). It is often simply assumed that mathamatical equations reflect the processes the occur in the Universe (going back to Newton) and some would call this a dogmatic and even anti-scientific approach.

Hey, Laika.

I enjoyed your post, but I'm not sure of this part. Can you elaborate on what you mean and maybe give an idea of where you get these ideas from because it contradicts what I know about maths.

 

[Yerda]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards

Science isn't the child of mathematics in any meaningful way. If mathematics had never been discovered we could still be doing the major part of science.

There is a meaningful way that we can say that all depend on philosophy but I don't know that they arose out of philosophy in the sense the metaphor here suggests.

 

[YmirGF]

Simply wrong.
Thanks for your input, however.
One is requested to attend to the later part "And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here." of the post #1.
Regards

"are welcome" does not mean "required", Sweet Pea.

I fail to understand how you could claim my statement was wrong. I'm more or less supporting your opening post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.

Great! Where are yours?

 

[Acim]

Regardless of history / historical claims, I think of philosophy as trumping the rest, or encapsulating them, with only possible exception being mathematics (rather than say arithmetic). Surely philosophy embraces them all, studies them, debates them. The rest seem to want to get away from philosophical questions that would plausibly downplay their foundations. Again, with possible exception to mathematics. Mathematics continuously strikes me as not caring a whole lot about what the others are up to, convinced about its purity and proceeding along merrily.

As much as spirituality/religion can show up as nonsensical, science takes one enormous leap of faith at it's foundation and has unsubstantiated claim that existence of the physical is reality. Nice little side step there science.

 

[Laika]

Hey, Laika.

I enjoyed your post, but I'm not sure of this part. Can you elaborate on what you mean and maybe give an idea of where you get these ideas from because it contradicts what I know about maths.

The way I understand it was that Newton essentially used mathamatics to describe the laws of physics. This is particularly true in terms of describing the movement of "heavenly bodies" such as the planets orbiting the solar system. Newtonian Mechanics are still used today BUT was superceded in part by Einstein's theory of Relativity. The way I remember it is that Newtonian mechanics didn't describe the movement of Mecury accurately, and it was Einstein who suggested that the bending of Space-Time due to the Sun's gravity was responsible for the irregulatities on Mecury's Orbit.
There was a BBC film (Einstein and Eddington) in which Arthur Eddington later demonstrated Einstein's theory by capturing the image of the Sun during a Solar eclipse. What it demonstrated was that the position of the stars changed during the eclipse and therefore that light "bends" around the sun.

I believe this can be stated mathamtically (I'm not smart enough to know how) but this creates a methodological problem in that if we start from mathamatical equations and then build theories on top of it, these later theories are dependent on the assumptions of the underlying models being correct. When you start studying the "extremes" such as the extremely small (quantum mechanics), the extremely large (cosmology, the big bang etc) the validity of these assumptions is stretched. The criticism that can be made is that we start creating theories to reflect these assumptions and then go looking for evidence for it. The "strangeness" and "counter-intutive" nature of many aspects of theoretical physics is down to dealing with the incredably abstract nature of the theories involved.

i.e. Whilst Newton was able to accurately describe the movement of the planets, it was because he already had data and observations to calculate those formulas for. However, what we (appear) to now be doing is creating formulas only then to go looking for evidence. In other words, we don't know if these equations actually correspond to the observations because we haven't made the observations yet. we are simply assuming the maths is a reflection of real processes.

For the record, this is an "anti-realist" criticism of the use of mathamatics in Science (i.e. maths may not correspond to "real" phenomena) and is widely regarded as pseudo-science or anti-Science and part of the "Anti-Cosmology" movement. so these criticisms probably would not be well recieved by the "scientific realists" who make up the scientific establishment (and who would argue that the maths does correspond to "real" phenomena because of the historical evidence to support that view).

 

[Yerda]

The way I understand it was that Newton essentially used mathamatics to describe the laws of physics. This is particularly true in terms of describing the movement of "heavenly bodies" such as the planets orbiting the solar system. Newtonian Mechanics are still used today BUT was superceded in part by Einstein's theory of Relativity. The way I remember it is that Newtonian mechanics didn't describe the movement of Mecury accurately, and it was Einstein who suggested that the bending of Space-Time due to the Sun's gravity was responsible for the irregulatities on Mecury's Orbit.
There was a BBC film (Einstein and Eddington) in which Arthur Eddington later demonstrated Einstein's theory by capturing the image of the Sun during a Solar eclipse. What it demonstrated was that the position of the stars changed during the eclipse and therefore that light "bends" around the sun.

I believe this can be stated mathamtically (I'm not smart enough to know how) but this creates a methodological problem in that if we start from mathamatical equations and then build theories on top of it, these later theories are dependent on the assumptions of the underlying models being correct. When you start studying the "extremes" such as the extremely small (quantum mechanics), the extremely large (cosmology, the big bang etc) the validity of these assumptions is stretched. The criticism that can be made is that we start creating theories to reflect these assumptions and then go looking for evidence for it. The "strangeness" and "counter-intutive" nature of many aspects of theoretical physics is down to dealing with the incredably abstract nature of the theories involved.

i.e. Whilst Newton was able to accurately describe the movement of the planets, it was because he already had data and observations to calculate those formulas for. However, what we (appear) to now be doing is creating formulas only then to go looking for evidence. In other words, we don't know if these equations actually correspond to the observations because we haven't made the observations yet. we are simply assuming the maths is a reflection of real processes.

For the record, this is an "anti-realist" criticism of the use of mathamatics in Science (i.e. maths may not correspond to "real" phenomena) and is widely regarded as pseudo-science or anti-Science and part of the "Anti-Cosmology" movement. so these criticisms probably would not be well recieved by the "scientific realists" who make up the scientific establishment (and who would argue that the maths does correspond to "real" phenomena because of the historical evidence to support that view).

Thanks.

When you say, we now create formulas and then go looking for the evidence, I'd say that's an accurate enough description of a lot of modern physics (as far as I can see - I'm not a physicist). When a model is created there will be consequences of the maths used that we can call predictions of the model. Sometimes these are startlingly counter-intuitive or unique. I can't see any real problems with this as long as physicists are willing to modify (or abandon) the models according to the results of experiment. All the models are "wrong" and have varying ranges of validity as you say. The philosophical debates around realism and anti-realism, demarcation and so on seem to be illuminating but fundamentally irresolvable. The main thing is to get on with it and see where it takes us, in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that many other fields of study (science and beyond) are beginning to yield to mathematical modelling. Computing power means we can solve for a lot of systems that we couldn't touch before. It might be that absolutely everything that can be understood can be expressed in some mathematical form. I like to hope so.

 

[paarsurrey]

"are welcome" does not mean "required", Sweet Pea.
I fail to understand how you could claim my statement was wrong. I'm more or less supporting your opening post.

Sorry, if I misunderstood you.
Regards

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards

Problem with the linkage.

If science was the child of mathematics, it could be argued that the mysteries are potentially solved with nothing beyond our grasp. If it was only that easy.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'd tend to go along with this as it represents human thought becoming clearer or much more refined. Irrational thought (religious revelation) gave way to the more sober structured analysis (philosophy) which branched off into a highly structured modelling environment (mathematics) which, in turn, gave rise to various schools of critical thinking about empirical data (sciences).

"Mathematics is the mother/basis of science as revealed by the structure of our brain and the design of school subjects for most cultures"
Mei-Shiu Chiu∗ National Chengchi University, Taiwan
ftp://ftp.math.ethz.ch/EMIS/proceedings/PME31/2/145.pdf
Truthful religion presents the normal thought of human beings which is in a separate realm than the worldly thought. it is never irrational rather the most rational one.
Regards

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards

Mathematics was historically considered a science, and by many it still is:
"Many educated people regard mathematics as our most highly developed science, a paradigm for lesser sciences to emulate. Indeed, the more mathematical a science is the more scientists seem to prize it, and traditionally mathematics has been regarded as the 'Queen of Sciences'."
Resnik, M. D. (1997). Mathematics as a Science of Patterns. Oxford University Press.

Science emerged from natural philosophy, and in particular Greek natural philosophy. It is certainly true that the emergence of science (which happened only once, and was no means inevitable nor did it require the specific context in which it arose) owed much to religion, but specifically medieval/early Modern Christianity. Earlier Christian wordviews (like those of Judaism, Islam, Greek, Roman, Chinese, etc.) lacked one or the other of a necessary component for science to be: a belief that the universe can be understood by empirical study (i.e., there is an "order" to it, which for the first scientists was provide by God) and should be understood this way (which, for the first scientists was because to know creation was to better understand God). However, religion didn't provide the method or framework. Natural philosophy did.

 

[Shad]

Mathematics was historically considered a science, and by many it still is:
"Many educated people regard mathematics as our most highly developed science, a paradigm for lesser sciences to emulate. Indeed, the more mathematical a science is the more scientists seem to prize it, and traditionally mathematics has been regarded as the 'Queen of Sciences'."
Resnik, M. D. (1997). Mathematics as a Science of Patterns. Oxford University Press.

Science emerged from natural philosophy, and in particular Greek natural philosophy. It is certainly true that the emergence of science (which happened only once, and was no means inevitable nor did it require the specific context in which it arose) owed much to religion, but specifically medieval/early Modern Christianity. Earlier Christian wordviews (like those of Judaism, Islam, Greek, Roman, Chinese, etc.) lacked one or the other of a necessary component for science to be: a belief that the universe can be understood by empirical study (i.e., there is an "order" to it, which for the first scientists was provide by God) and should be understood this way (which, for the first scientists was because to know creation was to better understand God). However, religion didn't provide the method or framework. Natural philosophy did.

Also consider that previous methods of understanding were unreliable; oracles, revelation, visions, etc. Science become dominant as it produced predictions which are far more accurate than other methods.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Also consider that previous methods of understanding were unreliable; oracles, revelation, visions, etc. Science become dominant as it produced predictions which are far more accurate than other methods.

Excellent point. Had science not yielded consistently accurate (or approximately accurate) as well as productive results, it would have been abandoned faster than it was adopted. Instead, the very religious inclinations that were instrumental for the development of science quickly came into conflict with the scientific mentality they helped inspire. Yet this mentality remained because it yielded results beyond the (rather limited) hopes that deists and theists such as Descartes, Newton, etc., could have dreamt of, and it didn't take long for the scientific endeavor to prove beneficial (often even essential) to society independently of religion or even opposed to it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Excellent point. Had science not yielded consistently accurate (or approximately accurate) as well as productive results, it would have been abandoned faster than it was adopted. Instead, the very religious inclinations that were instrumental for the development of science quickly came into conflict with the scientific mentality they helped inspire. Yet this mentality remained because it yielded results beyond the (rather limited) hopes that deists and theists such as Descartes, Newton, etc., could have dreamt of, and it didn't take long for the scientific endeavor to prove beneficial (often even essential) to society independently of religion or even opposed to it.

There is no real conflict between science and religion, as they deal different domains. Science deals the limited domain of "seen", religious domain is unlimited of the "unseen".
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science is the child of Mathematics.
Mathematics is the child of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the child of Religion.

And one's arguments, evidences and sources are welcome here.
Regards

Science, philosophy and art are methods for the pursuit of objective, spiritual and subjective Truth, respectively.

Math is the tool/language of science.

Religion is the codification and socialization of spiritual dogma without regard for the Truth originally proclaimed (if any). (e.g. most religions have a core Golden Rule which is subsumed almost to obscurity with extraneous religion-sustaining dogma, rituals and "moral" precepts.)