Mathematics: is God Silent? (James Nickel)

As we have surveyed the history of mathematics, we have noticed that what an individual or culture believes concerning the origin, purpose, and destiny of the cosmos affects the way mathematics is viewed and ultimately, the way mathematics progress. . .  mathematics is not a neutral discipline; it is always linked with presuppositions. - James Nickel, Mathematics: is God Silent? 

Similar in spirit to Soul of Science, Mathematics: is God Silent? traces the history of mathematical development and worldviews associated with its various trailblazers.  Author James Nickel's main point is that worldview matters in everything- even in mathematics.  How we view the world affects not only our thoughts on man's "origin, value, and destiny", but even how we approach the study and understanding of mathematics and construction of formulas to understand the world around us.  The first part of the book is the aforementioned history; the second provides recommendations for teaching mathematics from a biblical perspective.

Nickel certainly provides a differing viewpoint to the current mindset on math (or science, for that matter).  For example, he claims that adherence to the Greek mindset slowed Medieval development, and only Christian-minded folks (freed by Reformation, literacy, and mass printing) worked advances.  He also shows how things went off the rails when the focus became man:

In summary, note the progression of thought from the Bible to [Immanuel] Kant.  Genesis 1:1 states that God created everything: the universe and man (including his mand).  Kant said that man creates everything:  i.e., everything is a part of man and this thinking.  The world as we know it is at least relative to our mind if not an outright construct of our mind.  The world is something that we have dreamed up; it is our creation.

Interesting food for thought.

There's a lot of good information in this book- the author knows his stuff, has done his homework, and provides valuable references and resources.  Still, I read only about 50% and skimmed much of it.  I agree with the author's main point, but some of his other arguments I should study more.  In places, he gets repetitive and I'm not sure the practical differences (especially concerning how it changes mathematics education) come through.  Worth the time, in the end, but I think Soul of Science presents the same arguments in a more polished form.

Rating: B+