### Credits

**PRESENTER** Attila Peli

**PRODUCER** Speranta TV

**GRAPHICS/ANIMATION** Augustin Pop, Nicolas Weiss/POPIXAR STUDIO

**CAMERA **Daniel Scripcariu

**EDITING** Popixar Studio

**MUSIC **Mihai Pitan

**SOUND DESIGN **Florian Ardelean / CINESOUND EUROPE

View more

**CONSULTANTS**Florin Ghetu

**SPECIAL THANKS**Andreea Paun, Irina Anghel, Florin Ghetu, Aritina Barculescu, Cristian Magura, Cristina Cuncea, Mihai Bolonyi, Costin Banica, Petrica Cristescu, AnaMaria Lupu, Dorin Aiteanu

**CAMERA/LIGHT/SOUND EQUIPMENT**provided by Speranta TV

**SCREENWRITER & DIRECTOR**Attila Peli

COPYRIGHT SPERANTA TV 2018

### Transcript

In the previous episode we have shown, that mathematics is build on a set of propositions, called axioms, that are based on common sense, on intuition, but are unprovable and must be simply believed and accepted. In the case of geometry, Euclid’s axiomatic system was considered, for two thousand years, as being true, simply because no one contested it. But in the 19th century, two mathematicians, Janos Bolyai and Nicolai Lobachevsky, had another interpretation of „common sense”, another intuition, another belief, that the fifth axiom, the Parallel Postulate could be replaced by its negation.

View more

There were only two problems left, both of which were soon solved: the first one related to the compatibility of the new axiom with the rest of the axiomatic system, and the second, more important, involved finding at least one model where this new geometry is applicable. In other words, “alright … interesting theory, but does it have any use?”.

Thus, two non-Euclidean models of geometry were born: the hyperbolic – an infinite number o parallels can be drawn- and the elliptical – there are no parallel lines. Looking at these representations, a question arrises: how do we satisfy the problem of common sense, of intuition?

Although the definition of a line in mathematics is quite permissive, a straight line is straight, not curved.

If I ignore the intuitive definition, namely that the straight line is straight, how can I assess the outcome that results from a subsequent logical construction?

As mentioned in the previous episode, there remains one method to assess the value of a logical construction, namely, its applicability, its functionality. Meaning, is my theory useful in real life?

Obviously, any theory is useful for something, but the reason why most of you are hearing about non-Euclidean geometry for the first time is that it has very few real, non-philosophical, applications in our daily life, even if its logical construction is as solid as that of Euclid’s geometry. Thus, it is very important to understand that the force of mathematics, its popularity, the confidence that it offers to all of us, does not come necessarily from its logical construction, but from the intuitive premises that it’s based upon and, even more, from the variety of practical areas in which it is applicable.

However, what does all this have in common with religious belief?

If mathematics is a logical construction that starts from a set of unprovable, but intuitively correct propositions, and leads to practical applicability, can religious belief be the same thing? Namely, a logical construction that is built upon a set of unprovable, but intuitively correct, propositions, and leads to extended practical applicability in our everyday life?

To give an answer, in the next episode we will propose an axiomatic system applicable to religious faith, namely a set of propositions about God that cannot be proved, but are based on intuition, on common sense.