Humans have a hard time contemplating big numbers. Ask a person on the street the difference between 1 million and 1 billion, you you’ll get lots of answers, with most thinking they are both really big numbers. The real difference is that 1 billion is about 1 billion bigger than 1 million. (1 million is only 0.1% of 1 billion). Tell people that Cleopatra lived closer to man landing on the moon than she did to the building of the pyramids and they will just look at you like you are crazy.
Something happened 10,000 years ago? How do you process that, let alone the Jurassic period started about 200 million years ago?
I wonder if that is the reason religion has a hard time with science in general and evolution is particular because of the inability to handle the large numbers evolved. How do you process that Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our own, is 40,208,000,000,000 km away, or that the oldest human remains date to 315,000 years ago?
How mush easer it is to just assume the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, instead of the 4 billion years old it actually is? The numbers in the Bible are so much easier to digest than the number science give us.
How does one process that the church has over 100 billion dollars? Somebody has developed a web site that visualizes what $100,000,000,000 looks like. The average American person makes $2.7 million over their lifetime. How can that average person grasp that $100 billion is 37,000 times more that they will make in their whole life?
What has been your experience with big numbers? Do you work in a field that requires you to deal with them?
Wheat & Tares 
Great post, Bishop Bill. The Cleopatra bit definitely caught me off guard. Here’s a quote from a NASA writer, Elizabeth Landau, which stuck in my memory:
” 1 million seconds is nearly 12 days, whereas 1 billion seconds is almost 32 years.”
That mesmerized me the first time I read it. It’s the closest I’ve ever come to achieving a practical understanding of big numbers. Well that and Carl Sagan, in the Cosmos series, running around a campus trailing a roll of paper with zeros on it. Doing that allowed him to visualize only a fraction of a number called a googolplex. You can find that clip on YouTube. Very fun to watch.
Here’s a link to Landau’s piece, which draws on work by a Cornell University mathematician:
https://nautil.us/blog/-how-to-understand-extreme-numbers
In the modern Hebrew Bible all numbers are written out in full, but for a long time the text was written without vowels. The absence of vowels made it possible to confuse two words which are crucial to this problem: èleph and àlluph. Without vowel points, these words look identical: ’lp. Èleph is the ordinary word for “thousand,” but it can also be used in a variety of other senses: e.g. family (Judges 3:2); clan or governor (Zechariah 1:25,33–34); or as a military unit. Àlluph is used for the chieftains of Edom (Genesis 3:3–43); probably for a commander of a military thousand; and almost certainly for the professional, fully-armed soldier. (Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, 191)
If èleph of these passages carries its normal meaning of “thousand,” then many of the numbers appear extremely large. This difficulty has led many to discount the biblical numbers altogether or consider them to be intentional exaggerations. Though èleph usually meant “thousand(s),” the word clearly could also mean a part of a tribe (perhaps best translated “clan”). Given that èleph can mean “clan” and that Israelite soldiers may well have mustered and fought by clans, then èleph might stand for the soldiers who mustered from a particular clan. If correct, this suggests that the Bible may often refer to the number of tribal units rather than total numbers of troops. Most of the large numbers that appear too large shrink down to a more believable but indefinite size if èleph means “clan” or the unit of troops drawn from the clan. It is perhaps more likely that Saul mustered 330 units of soldiers to rescue Jabesh Gilead rather than 330,000 soldiers. (Seevers, Warfare in the Old Testament, 53–55)
Numbers in the Book of Mormon are also used as a means to determine rank. In modern language, a military man may be identified by the title of “general” and by the star on his uniform. In the Book of Mormon, a “general” would be identified by the title “captain of 10,000.” It does not mean that he has 10,000 men under his command. A captain of 100 does not mean that he has 100 men under his command. A captain of 50 does not mean that he has 50. It means that he holds a rank. When the pioneer companies were organized, they were divided into captains of 100, captains of 50, and captains of 10 — it was simply a way to identify a role, a rank, or a position; it was a way of dividing the people. So, when you get to the end of the Nephite wars, with ‘this and his 10,000’ and ‘that and his 10,000’ and ‘someone else and their 10,000’ and they’re all slain, it doesn’t mean that you are reading about hundreds of thousands or millions who are dying. It means that someone in a position of rank and authority and all of those under his command were slain. What those numbers amounted to, we don’t know.
People have a hard time grasping large numbers, but people also have a hard time grasping large numbers in relation to other large numbers. $100 billion is an insane amount of money for an individual, but it’s a relatively small number in the United States budget, for example. $100 billion for the Church is about $7,000 per member.
I’m terrible at typing on a phone. I meant to type $6,000 per member.
I actually work in a field that forces me to work with small numbers, where a fraction of a millimeter can mean thousands of dollars in losses or more, or how one part in 1×10^9 can affect product.
The numbers thing does work both ways though. Just a few days ago I read that the average human heart over one life time does the equivalent work of lifting one ton 150 miles. I also read that cat’s eyes are capable of seeing a single photon in pitch blackness (even humans as well though it’s not really “seeing,” probably for either). Numbers like that push me away from the idea that we’re the byproduct of complex and random chemical reactions. There is some intelligent engineering involved. If it’s involved in those aspects then I’m also forced to conclude mankind may or may no be right about some of the other numbers we have a hard time comprehending, but nonetheless place huge amounts of confidence in.
One hundred billion is admittedly hard to comprehend, but much less so than 27 trillion (and rising).
A few years back I worked in the finance department of a large bank. One of my first assignments was putting together a high-level P&L that wasn’t going to be publicly reported so accuracy and precision weren’t imperative; it was just to provide management with a directional financial guidance for a few strategy discussions. When sourcing data on one revenue stream, the information provider said, “I can get you numbers that are 95% accurate” which meant his line would be off by about $50 million dollars. When I mentioned this to my boss, he responded, “What’s $50 million between friends?”
Church leaders claim to be conscientious with the widow’s mite, but knowing they’ve got a hundred billion dollars in the bank and own half the state of Florida, I’d be surprised if some don’t have a cavalier attitude towards spending.
When the Q15 can drop $2 million on an interim meeting space, I’d say yes, they do have a cavalier attitude toward spending (on themselves, that is).
Another in the financial services industry. Once a project depended on a decision from regulators which would change the project cost by about $80million. We spent *many* hours preparing for that conversation. I asked my boss if I could keep 0.01% of the savings if we were successful, but alas, he wouldn’t agree…
Large numbers, like difficult statistics, seem to be difficult for most humans simply we don’t deal with them everyday. One meaningful metric that I heard once was along the lines of – every space shuttle launch costs the lifetime earnings of a town of 5000 people (or something like that). How many launches can our nation afford??
To me this speaks to the importance of competent, transparent oversight or checks & balances in many parts of life (ahem, church finances, govt spending).
This idea of large (and small) numbers has always fascinated me. I am surprised how difficult it is for me to imagine these large numbers. It is a spiritual experience for me to look at the stars and try to contemplate how far away they are. Or, to look at the stratification of the layers of rock in Southern Utah and contemplate the time it took to generate each layer. My kids laugh at me when I tell them I feel the spirit while contemplating what was going on on earth during this time and contemplate how many of my lifetimes it took just to generate an inch of such a layer. There is a fun book titled “THE ZOOMABLE UNIVERSE” (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374715717) that explores space from 10^27 meters down to 10^-35 meters. This book is a good way to stretch your mind on these large numbers. To me, God is in these big and small numbers.
Excellent points all around. However, a billion is not a billion times more than a million. Typo perhaps?
Visiting the catacombs in Paris provides a stunning visual of population. Looking at rooms piled from floor to ceiling with human bones, (and knowing it goes on for miles,) gave me a small glimpse of how I’ve underestimated human population.
Christianity is known for having an extremely short linear timescale on the order of thousands of years, but several Eastern religions have extremely long divine timescales with cycles on the order of millions or billions of years or more. A poorly defined “inability to handle large numbers” is not what makes the difference between scientific and unscientific thought.
The misunderstanding of big numbers has huge ramifications in both political and religious spheres.
In politics, if the press reports on to bills that cost 100 million and 100 billion respectively, it seems like a few days later the person will perceive them the same: they both cost 100 _illion dollars. So it makes it really hard for casual voters to have well informed opinions.
Age of the earth is hard too. The inability to understand large numbers contributed to science denialism, and specifically climate change denial. Many of the arguments denying climate change relate to a lack of understanding about the age of the earth. The earth HAS been this hot before, but not while humans or anything like us was alive. And our climate is changing much, much faster than it ever has before.
——
100 billion dollars. Sounds like a lot. Really it takes some work to determine if it is “reasonable”, depending on your definition of reasonable. Camacho’s analysis is a start, but maybe doesn’t take into account that the 100 billion is merely the investment fund of the church; I don’t think it includes the real assets such as church buildings, temples, equipment, etc.
Brickey, I said a billion is “about” a billion more than a million. The point is that a million is almost insignificant when compared to a billion. It is the same as $1 to $1000. How much more is a thousand than one dollar? About a thousand more. (well, 999 more, but I rounded up!)
Obligatory plug here for “A Short Stay in Hell” by Steven Peck. A quick read and one of the best approaches I have ever seen to appreciate the terror of the very large but not infinite.
One reason why both parties now get away with outrageous deficit spending (and this was pre-Covid) is because nobody can really grasp the numbers. $20+ trillion of US debt…who among us can even explain that amount? Everyone knows it will never be paid back. Pray pray pray that interest rates remain low.
To me, It’s not how much you have, it how you spend it (in regards to the $100B). Stats like $6,000 per member aren’t real useful. Realistically, the Church only has 8M members, so that doubles the number to $12,000/mem. Probably only half of those have temple recommends, so that $24,000/mem. So what? Comparing $100B to USA national numbers is just a distraction. The Church is one of the wealthiest corporation in the US.
A reasonable return on $100B is 5% year. Leaving have in the principal, you get an annual amount of $2.5B to deal with the 4th mission of the church: helping the poor. The Church’s annual budget is between 7-10B a year. $1B could be added from the operating budget without a great deal of effort. That gets us to $3.5B a year. A lot can be accomplished with that kind of money. Recently the Church bragged of giving $3M to help the homeless. That is a miniscule amount when compared to $3.5B. Members need more input into on how Church money is spent.
Josh H: Well, “paying back” the national debt isn’t really the goal. It’s not like we overspent on a credit card; we print the money, after all. It’s more helpful to think of the national debt as selling stocks than it is to think of it as debt on a loan. It’s an ongoing investment in the country. Here’s one article about it: https://theconversation.com/why-the-22-trillion-national-debt-doesnt-matter-heres-what-you-should-worry-about-instead-111805
Bishop Bill: I too was blown away by the Cleopatra fact. I didn’t know that! As far as the Church’s wealth goes, I’m a little concerned that the Church is wealthier than it is sustainable. Maybe that doesn’t matter because it could remain stagnant (membership-wise) or even shrink substantially (in terms of tithing donations), and the money now makes the money in perpetuity. We’ve got the wealth of Catholicism (or something like that) but without the deep roots and time-worn staying power of that organization.
Angela: with all due respect I don’t need to be educated on finance and economics. Believe me when I tell you that simply printing the money to make the payments ignores many dangers of deficit spending. It’s one thing to invest in the country via deficit spending when the country is recovering from a recession. It’s another to do so when we are enjoying GDP growth.
Our country’s credit card payments are “manageable ” because interest rates are so low. Most of us aren’t old enough to remember the interest rates of the late 70s that would have made debt payments a killer in today’s budget. Once you take away spending on defense, debt, and entitlements, you’re left with very little to play with for discretionary spending. And if interest rates rise, that pool left for discretionary spending diminishes very quickly. That’s the fire we are playing with. But neither party seems to care anymore. Republicans will pretend like they care now that Biden is president. But they don’t. And Democrats never have. (yes, I know the last budget surplus was under Clinton. That wasn’t his budget. He and his Dept of Treasury were as surprised as anyone when we ran those surpluses in the late 90s)
I think about the 100 billion from time to time – especially when struggling faithful members are encouraged to paying tithing ahead of essential bills. I think there should be a different way of calculating what tithing means – perhaps how it did in times past. This is especially relevant in countries with a much higher tax rate than what citizens of the USA might pay. Those who enjoy an abundance are always welcome to pay more and I know that many do. I’m not paying tithing at the moment because I’d rather have more control over where those charitable funds go. I don’t think enough is going to humanitarian causes.
Combining big numbers with mormon fantasyland
There is incredible inequality in America, and most of the rest of the world. There are 614 billionaires in America, with the richest having 185 billion. Nearly twice as much as the church. This is personal wealth. No one needs more than 50 million, let alone 1000 million. If it were redistributed there would be no poverty in America, and I understand equality increases GDP, is more productive.
At the same time about 40 million people live below the poverty line of $25500 for a family of 4. Can you imagine the stress of being a parent in a household with two children, living on less than 25500, can you imagine that multiplied by 40million?
Pres Biden has just signed an order that $15 be the minimum wage including for disabled people, but as there are also millions unemployed that probably won’t help many of those in poverty, and is still too low anyway. There should not be working poor.
I was pleased to see that dominion is suing Rudi Giuliani, for 1.3 billion, even though he (only) has assets of 45 million,and thought this might be a way to bring accountability for those who have destroyed truth. A contributor on this site said his wife was believing conspiracy theories, could he start a class action agains the source of the lies, and the spreader she got them from? Could the media that spread them be sued? Could fox and other news organizations, be sued, and or have their media licenses removed. Could google be sued?
I know you have truth in advertising laws, why not truth in media, and even truth in politicial campaigns? Does freedom of speech include the freedom to lie? Should it?
There is disturbing irony in our making “true religion” our fourth mission of the church, then a couple of years later limiting the hours of employees at Deseret Industries to <24/week so they won’t qualify for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, while amassing such an enormous amount of money, and justifying it to ourselves, and pretending that it’s not really very much money.