Mucky Declarations

I am in an upper level math class this semester (Vector and Tensor Analysis) and I have realised a pair of thought processes that often occur both in math and theology. Part 1 The scenario: you have this complex equation that definitely represents the behavior of whatever it is you are trying to model. The equation is too complex for you to be able to solve, however, without tons of work with the help of a supercomputer. You then look for ways to simplify the equation. You realise that the equation will reduce to something that you can easily solve if only this one term did not exist. So instead of working the thing through like it's supposed to be done, you assume that that one pesky term IS zero, and find what conditions need to be imposed in order to make that happen. The problem with this mindset is not that it doesn't work. Quite often the conditions that need to be implemented to make the equation simpler are simple enough to impose in real-life application. The problem that I see is one, I suppose, of nobility. I would prefer if the human race would stop trying to find the answers to the way the world works in terms of what they can make use of practically, but rather find the answers to the way things really do exist. This is the difference between true knowledge and "good enough for our purposes" knowledge. This is the more noble route. This process happens in theology as well. We come up with an attribute of God that we know to be true. We also then have this paradigm of the character of God that we refuse to let go of. Not that this paradigm is necessarily false, it just doesn't tell the complete story (if anyone thinks they have an exhaustive knowledge of the character of God, please let me know. I'd like to pick your brain for a while). We then look at scripture, rearranging all that we read, making sure that our one bit of truth fits into our paradigm. Quite often, this is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The problem is that we refuse to reshape the hole. The easiest route to a solution is not always the best. Let us not forfeit truth for convenience. Part 2 (take it in two chunks if it's too much for one day) Another problem occurs within the realm of assumptions. We all know the happy little phrase about "When you assume..." I think that one day, much of the scientific community will find that this is true. Y'see, I believe in warp speed. Well, not necessarily. But still, it's fun to say. Either way, in this class, we end up addressing some of the basic mathematical principles behind the theory of relativity. It is quite interesting looking at how this stuff was developed. Using the method of reasoning in Part 1, mathematicians came up with an equation that shows that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Everything thereafter in the theory treats this assumption to be true, and bases all reasoning on this supposed "fact." Now, I grant, that by the rules of mathematics, this assumption is true. The problem here is that even the basic rules of mathematics are based on us wrapping our minds around the way we think things exist. It's empirical. It's practical. We can't divide a number by zero, simply because we don't understand the concept. We simply say that whatever function produces this scenario is "undefined" at this point, and go about our business. So... I predict that at some point in time, we will discover that we CAN, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light, and that the entire community of astrophysics will be thrown for a loop, and have to start all over. Again, this relates to theology. We often get to a point where we decide that some thing is true beyond a shadow of a doubt (like the earth is the center of the solar system, or, to give a theological example, that man has a free will to either choose or reject God), and hold onto it for dear life. We augment the rest of our thinking based on this assumption, this "fact," never considering the possibility that our "fact" could be just fiction. I predict that the Truth about God will defy all of our assumption, and throw all of the world, especially theologians and philosophers, for a loop. And I'm just gonna laugh.