A neurotic mathematician believes he can document every equation describing the slope of a line tangent to a circle. But as he continues, the equations grow increasingly complex—spiraling into infinity. His goal, though noble in intent, is ultimately unattainable. Still, he finds correct answers within his self-contained world of circles, lines, and tangents, which fuels his persistence. Until he lets go of the original ambition to catalog every equation, he remains on a fool’s errand with no foreseeable end.
In varying degrees, this story mirrors the mindset of many who are mentally stagnant—“set in their ways.” These are people who believe, “All I need is this, this, and a steady supply of this to be happy for life.” They often perceive new ideas or technological advancements as threats. In an effort to soothe their cognitive dissonance, they irrationally cling harder to falsehoods, while more fruitful opportunities and deeper understandings pass them by.
The mathematician, endlessly calculating slopes, operates primarily through deductive reasoning—struggling to engage with abstraction. In contrast, those who accept the infinite and the inconceivable on faith—belief in something without proof—are able to engage the abstract.
Extremes of either mindset can be detrimental when they fail to engage the other. A healthy balance and acknowledgment of both deductive logic and abstract thought seems optimal, and less likely to result in cognitive dissonance.
Faith and reason, when working together, can achieve more than either alone. Consider Isaac Newton and the birth of Calculus. Newton had faith that the movements of the heavens could be calculated—an absurd notion to the dogmatically faithful of his time. Through rigorous reasoning and hard work, he devised Calculus. His blend of faith and reason yielded a powerful set of deductive tools. Yet it would be neurotic to believe that all phenomena can be explained through Calculus alone.
