Home A Belief Expressionist Explanation of Divine Conceptualist Mathematics
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A Belief Expressionist Explanation of Divine Conceptualist Mathematics

  • David M. Freeman ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: September 1, 2021

Abstract

Many have pointed out that the utility of mathematical objects is somewhat disconnected from their ontological status. For example, one might argue that arithmetic is useful whether or not numbers exist. We explore this phenomenon in the context of Divine Conceptualism (DC), which claims that mathematical objects exist as thoughts in the divine mind. While not arguing against DC claims, we argue that DC claims can lead to epistemological uncertainty regarding the ontological status of mathematical objects. This weakens DC attempts to explain the utility of mathematical objects on the basis of their existence. To address this weakness, we propose an appeal to Liggins’ theory of Belief Expressionism (BE). Indeed, we point out that BE is amenable to the ontological claims of DC while also explaining the utility of mathematical objects apart from reliance upon their existence. We illustrate these themes via a case study of Peano Arithmetic.


Corresponding author: David M. Freeman, PhD, Department of Math, Physics, and Computer Science, University of Cincinnati Blue Ash College, 9555 Plainfield Rd, Blue Ash, Ohio 45236, USA, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We heartily thank (in alphabetical order) James Anderson, Paul Balaguer, Paul Gould, David Liggins, Noah Weaver, and Greg Welty for extremely helpful correspondence while pondering the issues addressed in this article.

References

Anderson, J. N., and G. Welty. 2011. “The Lord of Noncontradiction: An Argument for God from Logic.” Philosophia Christi 13: 321–38. https://doi.org/10.5840/pc201113229.Search in Google Scholar

Artin, M. 1991. Algebra. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Balaguer, M. 1998. Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195122305.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Balaguer, M. 2009. “Fictionalism, Theft, and the Story of Mathematics.” Philosophia Mathematica 17: 131–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/nkn019.Search in Google Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul. 1965. “What Numbers Could not Be.” The Philosophical Review 74 (1): 47–73.10.1017/CBO9781139171519.015Search in Google Scholar

Bradley, J. 2007. “An Augustinian Perspective on the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Conference Proceedings of the Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences.Search in Google Scholar

Chow, T. 2019. “The Consistency of Arithmetic.” The Mathematical Intelligencer 41: 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00283-018-9837-z.Search in Google Scholar

Craig, W. L. 2014. “Response to Critics.” In Beyond the Control of God?: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by P. Gould. New York: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Craig, W. L. 2017a. “Absolute Creationism and Divine Conceptualism: A Call for Conceptual Clarity.” Philosophia Christi 19: 432–8. https://doi.org/10.5840/pc201719233.Search in Google Scholar

Craig, W. L. 2017b. God and Abstract Objects. Cham: Springer International.10.1007/978-3-319-55384-9Search in Google Scholar

Craig, W. L. 2019. “Response to Van Inwagen and Welty.” Philosophia Christi 21: 277–86. https://doi.org/10.5840/pc201921228.Search in Google Scholar

Gould, P., and R. B. Davis. 2014. “Modified Theistic Activism.” In Beyond the Control of God?: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by P. Gould. New York: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Liggins, D. 2014. “Abstract Expressionism.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65: 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axt012.Search in Google Scholar

Nelson, E. 2011. “Warning Signs of a Possible Collapse of Contemporary Mathematics.” In Infinity: New Research Frontiers, edited by M. Heller, and W. H. Woodin. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511976889.005Search in Google Scholar

Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195078640.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Plantinga, A. 2011. “Theism and Mathematics.” Theology and Science 9 (1): 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2011.547001.Search in Google Scholar

Plebani, M. 2017. “Non-Factualism versus Nominalism.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98: 344–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12116.Search in Google Scholar

Pudlák, P. 2017. “Incompleteness in the Finite Domain.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4: 405–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/bsl.2017.32.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, J. T. 2005. “Do the Integers Exist? The Unknowability of Artithmetic Consistency.” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 58: 1280–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.20084.Search in Google Scholar

Shannon, D. N. 2015. “The Epistemology of Divine Conceptualism.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 78: 123–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-014-9483-0.Search in Google Scholar

Welty, G. 2000. “An Examination of Theistic Conceptual Realism as an Alternative to Theistic Activism.” Master’s Thesis, Oriel College, University of Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

Welty, G. 2006. “Theistic Conceptual Realism: The Case for Interpreting Abstract Objects as Divine Ideas.” Doctoral Thesis, Oriel College, University of Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

Welty, G. 2019. “Do Divine Conceptualist Accounts Fail? A Response to Chapter 5 of God Over All.” Philosophia Christi 21: 255–66. https://doi.org/10.5840/pc201921226.Search in Google Scholar

Yablo, S. 2001. “Go Figure: A Path Through Fictionalism.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25: 72–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00040.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-02-26
Accepted: 2021-06-09
Published Online: 2021-09-01
Published in Print: 2022-04-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 14.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mp-2021-0011/html
Scroll to top button