The Earth was created in 6 days and is about 10,000 years old.
The Earth formed over millions of years and is about 4.5 billion years old.
One is an article of faith, the other a matter of science, right?
One is true, the other patently false, right?
Well, maybe not. What if I told you that there is a way to use science to show that both statements could be accurate simultaneously? Note carefully that I said could be true, not are true. I can't say for sure if the following series of conjectures is true or not. What I can say is that the second statement does not automatically render the first one false.
It all depends on using the proper framework.
For starters, you have to understand that by design, science does not answer any questions about religion and the existence of God. The idea of supernatural forces/beings/actions is automatically excluded from consideration in the scientific framework. This makes scientists very happy, as they can make and test their mechanistic theories about how the world works without worrying about divinity mucking things up.
But there's a consequence to operating in this framework that many scientists have a tendency to forget. Since they start out by choosing postulates that exclude the idea of God, none of their results can be construed to say anything about God, whether positive or negative.
Yes, you in the back, you have a question?
"But if the equations work without a God, then that means there's no need for a God, so doesn't that prove He doesn't exist?"
A good question, and one I'm glad you asked because it perfectly illustrates the fallacy of trying to disprove the existence o God using science. The short answer is "No, it doesn't." To more fully demonstrate, let's construct a proof. Your argument goes like this:
I can describe this process without resorting to God.
Therefore God does not exist.
It is very clear that the conclusion is not supported by the proposition. In order for the conclusion to be true, you would have to include a first postulate, making the proof look like this:
If God exists, He must be crucial to every process description.
I can describe this process without God.
Therefore God does not exist.
While the proof is logically sound, there is no basis for the first postulate, which makes the proof invalid.
Now, getting back to the subject at hand, the first postulate of science can be stated like this:
All processes in nature can be described without recourse to supernatural actors/forces.
Note that this statement says nothing about whether or not those forces actually exist or not. And because it doesn't, no proof constructed from that first postulate can have anything to say about the existence of those forces.
So, since science by definition cannot say anything about God, then why would I call this essay "The Mathematics of Divinity?"
Because math is not science; math is a descriptive language. It uses abstract symbols manipulated in a rigid, logical fashion, in an attempt to describe the real world. The results are haphazard at best.
Ahh, you in the back again. Math major, I take it?
"Come on, professor! You expect us to believe that math is haphazard? Math is perfectly designed, always logical, always repeatable, and makes perfect sense! How can you call that haphazard?"
Ok, allow me to demonstrate. Come up to the front of the class. On my desk, you'll find 5 pencils. Take 7 of them and bring them here to the podium.
"I can't! If there are only 5, then how can I bring you 7?"
What, you can't bring me -2 pencils?
As I said, haphazard. Following the rigid logical rules of mathematics can easily result in answers that have no real world counterpart. The point I'm trying to make here is that math is only useful when it provides an accurate description of the real world and its processes. It has no intrinsic value of its own.
So, what does all of this have to do with reconciling the biblical age of the earth with the scientific age?
Everything.
We'll talk about age as a dimension in Part 2.
Posted by Rich at October 25, 2006 10:00 PM | TrackBackOw! That made my head hurt!
Posted by: LissaKay on October 25, 2006 11:05 PMI think maintaining a postulate that science cannot describe divinity, therefore divinity cannot exists assumes we know all there is to know about the nature of science.
In other words, if we can't use science or math to explain God, we just haven't found the right science of math yet.
Could Alexander the Great understand the nuances of quantam physics without extensive training? I don't imagine so.
Posted by: Barry on October 25, 2006 11:48 PMFor starters, you have to understand that by design, science does not answer any questions about religion and the existence of God. The idea of supernatural forces/beings/actions is automatically excluded from consideration in the scientific framework.
What? This is the entire premise of this post, and it's completely false. Nothing is "automatically excluded from consideration" in any scientific framework. That's what makes it science.
Posted by: Chris Wage on October 27, 2006 10:09 AMChris, you may want to revisit the scientific method, which begins with the assumption that everything in nature can be explained in mechanistic terms, and is subject to verifiable, repeatable experimentation.
For further study, look up Sir Karl Popper and the principles of empirical falsifiability, which states that in order to be science, a theory must be testable, which obviously leaves supernatural forces out of the question, since God is not testable. Popper's philosophy supplies the logical underpinnings of the scientific method.
By definition, science excludes matters of faith and religion.
Posted by: rich on October 27, 2006 10:44 AMYou claim that scientists automatically "exclude" god from consideration and then use it as a premise to help refute strawman arguments such as this:
I can describe this process without resorting to God. Therefore God does not exist.
That isn't a scientific argument, and no one makes it. Who says that?
All processes in nature can be described without recourse to supernatural actors/forces.
Again this is not a statement that really makes any sense in the scientific paradigm.
"supernatural actors/forces" doesn't mean anything. A scientist would never be surprised by something being "explained" by a "supernatural" force, because .. if it's "explained" sufficiently, then it's .. scientific.
I guess I'm just not understanding what you're giong for here.
Is the point of this post that "god is faith, and faith is unverifiable"? Because, well, then I agree, I guess.
But you seem to be saying "Science 'automatically excludes" god, therefore here are some examples of how silly closed-minded scientists miss out on explanations for things because they ignore the super-natural".
That's circular, given that an "explanation" carries the implication of an empirical validation, specifically removing it from the domain of faith (or a God).
Am I misunderstanding your point?
And yes, I'm familiar with Popper, but thanks for the condescension!
Posted by: Chris Wage on October 27, 2006 10:58 AMAnd yes, I'm familiar with Popper, but thanks for the condescension!
Chris, if you were familiar with Popper, you would not be advancing the argument you are.
Let's take it step by step.
1. According to Popper, for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable, that is to say, you must be able to design an experiment that would show the theory to be false.
2. Any theory, say creationism for example, that is based on God (or any other supernatural force/entity) is not falsifiable, because any experimental result can be chalked up to "the will of God."
3. "Supernatural" in this context is defined as any force or process that occurs outside the natural, mechanistic laws of the universe. For example, explaining schizophrenia via demonic possession is not scientific. Explaining it through the use of neurology and psychology is scientific.
4. Since supernatural theories are not verifiable, they are not scientific, according to Popper. And since the Popper Doctrine is the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method, it follows that science does not deal with questions of God and the supernatural.
Chris, this is the basis for modern science, not something I'm making up. I'm sorry if you think I'm being condescending, but your definition of science is not shared by the scientific community.
A scientist would never be surprised by something being "explained" by a "supernatural" force, because .. if it's "explained" sufficiently, then it's .. scientific.
1. Science does not explain. Science describes. There's a huge difference here. Explain includes answering the question "Why?" and science does not answer the question "Why?" Science answers "What happens?" and "How does it happen?"
2. A supernatural force can explain any process sufficiently; that's the problem. For example, the answer to any physical question can be "Because God made it that way." For example, I could resolve the paradox of the earth's age simply by saying that God created the world 10,000 years ago, creating it at an age of 4.5 billion years. Problem solved.
But that's not very scientific, is it?
But you seem to be saying "Science 'automatically excludes" god, therefore here are some examples of how silly closed-minded scientists miss out on explanations for things because they ignore the super-natural".
I'm not sure where you came up with that, since I'm actually going in the opposite direction. I'm using hard science to show how the earth can be 10,000 years old, and 4.5 billion years old at the same time. In order to do so, I've got to acquaint those unfamiliar with science with the basic concepts of science, including the scientific method. I've also got to stamp out common fallacies, such as the ones I pointed out earlier.
Posted by: rich on October 27, 2006 3:33 PMYou have completely lost me. I agree with everything you just said about science. I don't how you got from "for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable" to "I'm using hard science to show how the earth can be 10,000 years old, and 4.5 billion years old at the same time".
I feel like I am in the twilight zone.
Posted by: Chris Wage on October 27, 2006 4:55 PMAll will become clear. I've got a few more concepts to present first before I tie it up into one package. Like I said, right now, I'm setting the framework.
Posted by: rich on October 27, 2006 5:02 PM