A Mathematical Approach to Faith

The most fundamental element of mathematics is not 1. Many would argue this, but these people are ignoring the underlying ideas of math. In my opinion, the fundamental element of mathematics is "if-then". If 1+1=2 and 2+1=3 then 1+1+1=3.

Math started out with counting things and from there expanded. Every advancement in mathematics has come out of the simple idea that if one thing happens, then something else happens. If Tommy has 2 apples and Mary has 3 apples, then together they have 5 apples. If a right triangle is half of a rectangle, then the formula for the area of that triangle must be half the formula for the area of a rectangle with the same dimensions.

A lot of people don't realize this, but when you get into the "higher realms" of mathematics (for lack of a better term), it is much more like philosophy than science. In fact, some would argue that math is the purest and most internally consistent branch of philosophy that exists. Other than me (who is far too lazy to actually argue this point), I don't know who those people are, but they exist. I'm positive. Like 83%. Because that is where my background lies, math is the frame-of-reference for me when analyzing most things. So here you go:

If math is my frame-of-reference when analyzing most things and if I believe that the fundamental element of mathematics is "if-then", then I use "if-then" logic when analyzing most things.

When considering any line of thinking, I believe that one should accept a fundamental truth. I honestly don't care what that truth is, but you need to accept one.

Looking at arithmetic, you could accept "1+1=2" as your fundamental truth. (The mathematician in me is insisting that I point out that I have already assumed other things such as the definitions of "1", "+", and "=", and thus they would be more fundamentally true, but that doesn't make my point as easily for the casual reader.) If you accept "1+1=2" as your fundamental truth, you have to accept whatever follows. Thus, you have to accept that 1+1+1=2+1 and 1+1+1=1+2.

You then need to decide if these are contradictory statements. In this case, you need to know if 2+1=1+2. If for some reason they are not equal, your fundamental truth is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. In our case, the statement "2+1=1+2" is, in fact, true and so it can be accepted.

Now here's where things get interesting. Our fundamental truth (1+1=2) doesn't say anything about 2+1, so we get to get creative. We can decide, for example, that 2+1=3. We then have to accept whatever follows from that. If 2+1=3 and 1+1=2, then 1+1+1+1=2+1+1=3+1 but also 1+1+1+1=2+2. These are only true if 3+1=2+2. Thus 4 comes along, then you can get 5 and so on and so forth.

This is, in a sense, how math came to be what it is today. What if, however, we take this same idea and apply it to other areas? What if you accept a different fundamental truth and follow it to its natural conclusion? This is what I would call a mathematical approach, and what it can really teach you (beyond how to understand calculus) is empathy.

empathy: (n) the ability to understand and share the feelings of others

That's right. Math can teach you to be more compassionate.

But how?

I take you back a couple of years to when I was a much more consistent blogger and a much more impassioned human being in general; back when I got fired up about EVERYTHING.

The topic that day: Westboro Baptist Church.
The gist of the Facebook post: What they do, they do out of love.
The reaction: You are a **** for posting this and you should be ashamed of yourself.
My reaction: Shameful removal of the Facebook post.

Among most people in my social circle whenever you bring up WBC, the knee-jerk reaction is anger, mockery, and disdain. Most people feel the same about them as I once felt about the man with the Jesus scepter. (Since identified as Brother Jed.) WBC and Brother Jed are both well known for being confrontational, insulting, and, from the perspective of many, mean and offensive. The natural reaction to such qualities is anger and hate.

I think we can all agree that hate is not compassionate.

Let's look at things from their perspective.

If you believe that a person's actions can condemn them to an eternity of suffering, what follows? We'll consider two reactions: justice and mercy.

• Justice: Let them suffer! They deserve it!
• Mercy: I need to do everything in my power to help them.

If you truly believe that a person's actions correlate with their eternal destiny (e.g. whether they go to Heaven or Hell), the merciful response is to try and save them from themselves by whatever means necessary. If that means being a jerk to get their attention, fine. If that means telling them straight up that what they're doing is wrong, fine. Thing is, in such dire situations, mercy doesn't always look "nice".

That's what I was trying to say when I posted on Facebook about WBC doing what they do out of a place of love. If you actually listen to people from the Westboro Baptist Church talk about their beliefs, they are speaking from a place of love. Tough love, but love nonetheless. You would only let someone you hate continue to live their lives in such a way that would allow them to go to a place of ETERNAL suffering. Honestly, their faith has just as much of a Biblical foundation as most other people. As they say repeatedly in an interview with Russell Brand, "We're not making this stuff up."

It brings up an interesting idea. If you believe that Hell exists, then how far are you willing to go to save someone from that fate? Would you be willing to go to Hell yourself if it meant saving someone else? Would you be willing to compromise everything about yourself to keep someone from suffering for all of eternity?

Most branches of Christianity currently teach that if you believe that Jesus Christ is your savior, then you go to Heaven. Otherwise, you go to Hell. They also teach that this is the ultimate goal of life on Earth. This is the most important thing. So what follows?

The compassionate, merciful, and loving response would be to fight tooth and nail to make sure that every person believes Jesus is their savior. If you already believe that he is yours, and belief is the only thing that gets you into Heaven, your actions that follow are rather moot as far as your own eternal destination. That means that you can lie, cheat, and steal whatever you want as long as you believe Jesus is your savior, and you will still go to Heaven. Isn't the most loving thing, then, to lie, cheat, and steal whatever you have to to convince as many people as possible that Jesus is their savior? Wouldn't the most loving thing be to con people into believing that, regardless of truth, and then have them assassinated as soon as they believe? That way, they believe, they die believing, and they go to Heaven before they change their mind.

Here's the thing: people have made other assumptions along the way. They added in ideas. Much like how earlier we added in the idea that "2+1=3", people have added in the idea that there is a "right" way to save people. The real question is, does that contradict the fundamental truth (i.e. if you die without believing Jesus is your savior, you're going to Hell)? I'll leave that one for you to think about.

Here's the more interesting question to me: If there is a single narrow path that leads to Heaven and everything else leads to Hell, what is more loving? Staying on the path that brings you to Heaven and letting others wander off or going off the path yourself to keep someone else from walking into Hell? Would you be willing to go to Hell if it meant someone else could go to Heaven?

I don't have the answer to that question, nor is that question really my point here. My point is that you may not be doing the most loving thing possible within your belief system while others may be in theirs. Who is being truly more loving: the person who believes that someone's actions condemn them to Hell and fights tooth and nail to convince people that what they are doing is wrong regardless of what society tells them or the person who believes that only belief gets people into Heaven but doesn't lie, cheat, and steal to save others?

(On a side note: I think the smartest evangelist for any religion would put all their money into ad agencies. Quit wasting time trying to figure stuff out by yourself and use those people who have devoted their lives to convincing people to do things they may not want to do.)

This is what mathematical thinking is all about. It's about coming at things from a new perspective. Throw off everything you believe, temporarily accept what someone else believes, and follow it to its conclusion. Only then can you truly understand someone else's feelings and actions.

You can try this with your own faith, too. Figure out what your fundamental truth is, then see if your other beliefs contradict with that. Do you believe that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God and that we must obey every line of it to the letter but also believe that it's alright to wear polyester or pearl earrings? Do you believe that faith must be viewed through the lens of science but also believe that all humans descended from Adam and Eve? Do you believe that Jesus is God and also believe that Jesus is the son of God? Do you believe that your faith's contradictions are acceptable but get angry when other people's faiths have contradictions in them?

More importantly, do your actions line up with the most loving implementation of your core beliefs?