Member Rara Avis
Isn't this an absurd argument?
It is, Stephen, but not, I think, for the reason you espouse. Indeed, I believe you and Dawkins are both making almost exactly the same mistake.
Hint: Atheism, celibacy, and pregnancy all have something in common.
"There is a sense in which two and two are four, the plane of ledgers and cashbooks – on which these propositions are approximately sound."
Perhaps it would be wise, then, not to confuse the two planes (nor assume one is loftier than the other).
The confusion here isn't over math, but rather over language. For example, a father can, indeed, distribute his wealth. A mother, however, doesn't really distribute her love. Giving your love to someone is just a euphemism, a figure of speech, that shouldn't be confused with the more literal meaning of giving or distributing.
Which isn't to say there aren't nonetheless some interesting parallels. For example, the set of Natural Numbers is infinite. If you take away (distribute or give) all of the odd numbers, the remaining set will still be infinite.
"In the great crises of life one’s faith in figures breaks down hopelessly."
Mathematics is a tool. As is reason. And just as one shouldn't use a saw to drive a nail, one shouldn't expect tools of the mind to necessarily work effectively with matters of the heart. I think it's interesting to note, in this sentence of Boreham's, that it isn't figures that break down hopelessly, but rather a person's faith. In which case, I would have to say the faith, be it in math or miracles, was quite possibly misplaced.