Cosmic Religionbury the issue of the effectiveness of mathematics, not deal with
it. Mathematics has an a priori and necessary nature. Implicit in
the notion of a law of nature is the idea that they are fundamen-
tal too. So, if these are the laws, then what meta-law fi xed them?
Given all this, the theistic explanation might start to look irre-
sistible. Science recharging the spirit once more.
But it is a big leap to go from the metaphysics of mathematics
to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For one thing, math-
ematics is not personal. No one would suggest you worship an
equation, for all that it may inspire awe. It is this that leads to
the Platonist conclusion: maths does seem to have an existence
that is not dependent upon human thought, but that doesn’t
imply a full blown theological cosmology.
Penrose makes another very good point. You can live your
whole life with a very minimal knowledge of mathemat-
ics, and live it very well. So while Plato required his pupils to
have a thorough knowledge of geometry before they entered
his Academy, the school of life does not require profi ciency in
maths: meaning is not dependent upon calculus, nor spirituality
on algebra. His preferred view is to say that the Platonic nature
of mathematics is a mystery but that it doesn’t actually say
much about cosmic religion. That can be understood by com-
parison with the argument made by Plato from the Euthyphro.
Recall that Socrates asks whether something is good because a
deity says it is good, or whether it is good anyway, and con-
cludes that such debates say more about our diffi culties grap-
pling with what is good than they do about the existence of
gods. Penrose concludes:
I don’t take that view [that God created the universe]... I’m
not going to argue against that view. I’m not going to take
a religious view in this at all. I would say it’s neutral with
respect to the existence of God.He is not a militant atheist. In fact, he is quite happy to talk
of his Platonic view of mathematics as ‘God-given’ in his books.