On Netflix, a series titled “The Story of Maths” examines the fascinating developments of various schools and disciplines of mathematics. In one episode the host is standing in a cathedral explaining how a churchman contributed important concepts to the field of math. Then, pointing to a stained glass window, he announces he is not a believer. Instead, he says, he puts his “faith” in mathematics, in the way it can help us measure, quantify, and analyze the stuff around us.

He lied. He is a believer. He is as much a faith practitioner as any religious person who has ever lived, is presently alive, or who ever will live. Neither mathematics nor any other dimension we call science can define the boundaries of some of the things we deal with every day. So, our esteemed host and all the others who believe in science as the comprehensive way of measuring and understanding humanity are putting their trust in something that has strict limits. Unless they acknowledge those limits, they are living a lie.

For example, how does one quantify desire? Is there a device or a method that can accurately assess, measure, or objectively describe the intensity, the depth, and the meaning of the desire expressed by someone? No matter how much a person insists that his or her desire is all consuming, there is no objective, scientific measure of what is being felt, nor of the constituent parts that may combine to form the desire. Furthermore, how does one account for individual differences in perception which may vary vastly from one person to the next? All we can do is rely on the statements of people as to what they feel. Where is the objective science in that?

In fact, there is no science that can read with accuracy and detail the operations of human personality. In his book, Masters of the Mind, Theodore Millon traces the history and the content of various working models of personality. He alerts his readers to the fact that all the many models he lists in the text are the product of the perceptions of the theorists’ own inner life. Thus, all the models are subjective in origination as well as in interpretation during application of the models. A university professor in California stated that he does not rely on a single model of personality in his classes on psychological counseling. Rather, he teaches his students a wide variety of models, some leaning toward physical causes and some not, and tells them to use their intuition to discover which may be most helpful in dealing with patients. There is nothing in science, especially mathematics, which can reliably discover and quantify the depth and breadth of the human mind, soul, and spirit.

Even in examining the visible substances around us, science is subject to strict limits. And, when it comes to such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, strict objective science has virtually nothing to offer. It has no compelling, comprehensive way of locking human personality into any pattern of behavior or any specific outcome.

Therefore, those persons in legislatures, courts, high political offices, religious assemblies, educational institutions and other cultural conclaves who insist that personality is subject to fixed orientations that result in same-sex desire, transgender identity, and various gender expressions are pursuing figments of their imagination. They are claiming science that does not exist in order to establish in law and community life phantom science which leads to the end of law and community. They demand that all of us accept a science without limits, so they can impose life without limits on all the peoples of the earth.