Biblical roots of science
From Wikinfo
- For criticism see Criticism of Biblical_roots_of_science
Biblical roots of science.
(In particular, how the Reformation, with its return to using the Bible alone as the measure of truth, affected not only theology, but also society and science)
After the Reformation, science as a procedure, as a systematized way at looking at the physical universe, really took off, This was most evident in countries most affected by the Reformation. It fueled the industrial revolution, so that those countries that had the greatest scientific achievements also had the greatest wealth and power. This was not just a happenstance, coincidence, rather there are ideas taken from the Bible, through the Reformation, that led to the development of science. What follows below are some of the ideas found in the Bible, as applied by the Reformation, that led to the scientific, technological and industrial revolutions.
Ideas in theology:
Creation:
* Creation objectively exists.
* Created by a rule making/rule following God, therefore nature too ought to follow rules.
* Man created in the image of God. This is not a formal statement, rather a functional statement: that man has creativity, logic, reason, emotions, sense of justice, like God. Therefore man is able to reverse engineer God’s creation.
Morality:
* Honesty.
* That knowledge does not belong to one person alone, rather is to be shared with those who can benefit from it.
* We are our brother’s keeper, therefore the fruits of science are not to be kept for oneself, rather to be shared.
* Individualism, that under the Reformation people are individually responsible to their God.
Practice:
* What counts is history and action, over theory and form.
* Go to primary sources for knowledge, in theology to the Bible, in studying nature, observe nature directly, and question “experts”.
* Physical labor is not denigrated, rather glorified, therefore get one’s hands active in making experiments.
* Freedom, that people are free to follow their individual responsibilities.
* Universal education.
To expand these factors:
Creation objectively exists:
The history of the creation is the founding basis of Biblical theology. This is told first from the perspective of God (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and secondly from the perspective of man (Genesis 2:5 to the end of the chapter). It then adds the history of how the original, good creation was corrupted by the willing, moral actions of the first people (Genesis chapter 3). The rest is history of what happened afterward.
The scientific implications of this history are in the descriptions of how the creation was done; namely, God created the universe to be separate from the existence of God himself. Thus the universe is not an emanation of God, nor an appearance of God, nor even God himself, rather an object that has its own existence in the presence of God.
This last point is important in view of the modern neo-luddite, neo-pagan revival known as the Gaia hypothesis, where technically advanced man is seen as a blight upon nature, a violation of the goddess Gaia. In fact, that is behind much of the modern anti-scientific mood found among many people, and even for calls among elites for massive exterminations of humans and a return to primitive living conditions.
“In the presence of God” avoids also the destructiveness of atheistic development, where man is seen as the measure of all things, and as the highest of evolution, can impose his vision on nature without regard to others or long term impact.
Biblical teaching, on the other hand, views non-destructive development as a good, because it helps people to live a better lives. Man’s subjugation of nature is not one of conquest, rather stewardship of what ultimately does not belong to him (Psalms 24:1, 1 Corinthians 10:26). This is a subjugation that is ultimately made possible by the fact that the physical universe objectively exists and can be studied.
The physical universe was created by a rule making/rule keeping God:
What set of rules is better known than the set of rules given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, better known as “The Ten Commandments” (Exodus 20)? Yet this was just one set of rules that God made. Further, he restricted himself by the rules that he made, as can be seen by his repeated references to keeping the promises that he had made (e.g. Romans 11:29). While some of the rules were temporary for a particular time and place, other rules that he made were absolute rules, applicable to all peoples and places.
The implications for science are that just as there are rules governing man’s actions, also interactions between man and God, so would there be rules for physical nature that can be studied, learned and applied.
This is in contrast with pagan religions which had their petty gods who were forever squabbling among themselves, and failing to establish or enforce any absolute rules that applied to all peoples and situations, least of all, among themselves. So just as there were no absolute rules among the gods, why should there be rules among nature?
Or another contrast is with pantheistic religions where the phenomenal universe is not the ultimate reality. So just as we cannot trust our senses to tell us about the ultimate reality, so how can we trust our senses when they tell us about the phenomenal universe? Will not even the appearance of rules be but a portion of the unreality of which our senses tell us?
Therefore, from the theology derived from the Bible, early scientists looked for the rules that govern nature, and found many of them.
Man created in the image of God:
This is not a formal description of man, which would lead to the expectation that God is a physical superman, rather a functional description of the soul of man: man’s creativity, desire for rules, emotions, love, hate, reason, logic, sense of justice, honor, responsibility for others, and so forth. It is that functional image of God innate to humans that led to the expectation that man would be able to “reverse engineer” the physical universe, to discover the rules that make it tick.
In connection with this is the command that man is to subdue nature (Genesis 1:26, 28). This is not only to practice self-control, rather also to make order out of unruly physical nature (Genesis 2:15). An example of that is to practice agriculture instead of just being a hunter-gatherer. That subjection requires an understanding of nature with the ability to reverse engineer how nature was made in the first place. Further, this subduing of nature was never considered merely a matter of individual exploitation, rather the utilization of nature for the benefit of all.
Honesty:
One of the critical things that led to the development of science is the communication of findings. In order for that communication to be effective, it is important that the observations are accurately and honestly reported.
In non-Christian societies, there is no absolute requirement for honesty. As a result, other considerations can be and are used as justifications for “stretching the truth”, otherwise known as scientific fraud. A political or other “crusade” can look for, and find, “scientific” support for its purposes.
Absolute honesty, on the other hand, leads wherever it leads, no matter whose theory, reputation or pocketbook is supported or hurt.
Knowledge is not private:
This again is tied up in the idea of stewardship rather than ownership. While stewardship can and does have the property of temporary ownership, it does not confer absolute ownership, i.e. the right to do whatever one wishes with what he “owns”.
Especially in the area of ideas, where there is a way to help one’s neighbors, it is irresponsible to hold back on those ideas, especially if the desire is to profit from withholding ideas. Where the most important thing in a Christian’s life, namely in communicating about man’s relationship with his God is commanded to be passed on (Matthew 28:19–21), so how can a Christian hold back on lesser ideas, especially ones that will benefit the hearers?
One result of this sharing in connection with the honesty mentioned above, is that collaboration is then possible, which leads to greater expansion of learning and technical development.
Individualism: we are individually responsible to our God.
This is not a radical individualism where individuals are considered autonomous from other individuals, rather it is an individualism that recognizes each individual’s responsibilities to God and his fellow man. This is shown in Peter’s individual responsibility to God, no matter what happens to other people (John 21:22) and that blessing and punishment is to be reckoned on an individual basis (Ezekiel 18:4, 20).
In science, this is an individualism that says that each scientist is individually responsible to his craft: to be honest in his research and reportage of same. That means that scientists should also be ready to challenge the herd mentality that accepts teachings merely because the majority of people, even within one’s own specialty, also accept that teaching.
We are our brother’s keeper:
Ever since the early church, Christians did what they could to aid their fellow man. This was not merely an individual prerogative, rather a religious command, one that traces its history back to the history of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Genesis 4:9). The Jewish laws had numerous references to succor the less fortunate, an attitude that was taken over by the early church.
Likewise, for many, science is seen as a tool to strengthen the ability to fulfill this religious duty. As such, the lessons learned from science are not to be kept to one’s self, rather disseminated for the greater good. It is in this dissemination that we find the founding of scientific societies with their journals.
This is in contrast to the practice found in many societies, where the acquisition of knowledge is seen as a tool for personal enrichment, with little to no concern for those who are less fortunate than oneself. It is in these societies that one sees knowledge held in secret for the benefit of those who have it, to be practiced at a fee for personal enrichment, or even withheld so that enrichment can come from other sources.
What counts is history and action, superior to theory and form:
This goes back to creation, that it is history, not legend. Creation, as well as later actions, are the reason for concepts, beliefs, actions, even science.
Just as Biblical Christianity is based on history, starting with the creation, so science is based on experimentation, in which even in the short duration of the experiment itself, has a history with a beginning, process and end. Furthermore, experimentation involves action. In philosophy, this sort of thinking is called “ Hebrew Thought” because the earliest surviving book that uses this way of thinking is the Bible, where the oldest portions were written in Hebrew.
Go to the primary sources:
Before the Reformation, the dominant theme in scholarship was the following of precedents. That means, that in order to understand something, one needs to consider the thoughts of the “experts”, both those who have gone on before and those who are the present experts. In fact, they were considered more importanat than one’s own thoughts.
However, the Reformation changed that. Firstly, it was in the hermeneutic, in reading the Bible. With the Reformation, the text itself was that which was important, not what others said about it. One’s personal reading of the Bible was to be used to critique what others said before, not have what they said used as the guide to the proper way to understand what the verses say, as was the practice before. An early reference was that the king over Israel was to write his own copy of the Bible and read it regularly (Deuteronomy 17:18) while the New Testament makes numerous references to reading the Bible because “…all Scripture is useful…” to prepare for all of life (2 Timothy 3:14–17).
The Reformation scientists took this same practice outside of the Bible and applied it to the study of nature. Whereas before, the statements of Aristotle, Ptolemy and others like them were considered authoritive, under the influence of the Reformation, the study of nature directly, making observations, looking for patterns to make into hypotheses and theories, takes precedence over the statements of “experts”, even if those experts are recognized scientists. Thus was developed the scientific method of observation, make sure the observation can be repeated, look for patterns among the observations, and test hypotheses by observations.
Physical labor is not denigrated:
TGIF was everyday for most societies, even today, where the goal of individuals is to relax, take it easy. Under the Reformation, however, physical labor was glorified as a gift from God. As such, it was not to be scorned.
For the Reformation influenced scientists, this glorifying of physical labor meant that getting one’s hands dirty in making experiments was not looked down on. It was part of the primacy of observation over theory where observations are the judges of models and theories, rather than the other way around.
Freedom:
This is connected to individualism and responsibility to God and our neighbors above. This freedom is not license, the freedom from duty and responsibility, rather it is a recognition that individuals are autonomous moral beings, individually responsible to God as to how well he has fulfilled his responsibilities. In fact, without freedom, the individual is unable to practice his moral responsibilities to his God and act out being his brother’s keeper.
In science, this is an antidote to the herd mentality mentioned by Thomas Gold, saying rather that individual scientists don’t have to follow the consensus. They are allowed to contradict “experts”, and are even required to do so if their research indicates that the “experts” were wrong.
Part of the response to freedom is that other scientists ought to recognize and respect their fellow scientists’ freedom to be wrong, because scientists are still human and subject to making mistakes. This also allows individual scientists to disagree where the research is insufficient to answer which scientist, if any, has the correct understanding of nature. This is unlike much of modern practice where if an individual scientist disagrees with the consensus, he can be denied research funds, even his job as a scientist, irrespective of whether or not he is correct.
Universal Education:
This was first a religious duty; how are people to follow God’s will if they don’t know it? And how are they to learn it if they can’t read the Bible, where God’s will is spelled out? In this the Reformation returned to the practice found first in the Bible that children were to be educated in what God had done (Exodus 12:25–7), repeated many times and places in the Old Testament and a practice inherited by the early church.
But a basic education does not stop at merely being able to read the Bible, it also includes understanding literary styles, being able to do arithmetic, learning about history and society. in short, a well rounded education.
It was on the basis of the Reformation with its return to Biblical theology that all children were urged to get educated. While the schools were private, it was understood from the beginning that those who could not pay were to be educated without cost, because part of the duty in being one’s brother’s keeper is to prepare youth for the future.
This education was not merely a training to become proficient in a particular job or career, as was in an apprenticeship, rather a fully rounded education so that a person may learn to become wise in all things, as far as his ability allowed him. Furthermore, it is recognized that each individual is different, so that whatever education was given, the purpose was to prepare him for whatever career in which he may best praise God, therefore it had to be well rounded.
Conclusion:
While it is true that many other societies had and have many of the factors above that led Reformation Christians to develop science, in particular, China had had a well developed technological basis that was superior to pre-Reformation Europe, it was only Christianity as informed by the Reformation that had all the factors needed for the development of modern science, all in one package. Also it is true that individuals in other societies are able to practice science, but for the most part, such individuals work outside their cultural expectations, as did Archimedes. Likewise, one does not need to be a Christian in the manner of the Reformation in order to practice science, rather he can practice science as long as he uses the pattern of thinking that is derived from Biblical Christian theology.
Is there a future for science?
Can science survive the modern neo-paganization of society? Increasingly we are seeing a return to pre-Reformation thinking, even among scientists: there is increasingly a deference to “experts” instead of a reliance on observation as the basis of “scientific knowledge”; in other words, theory and models taking precedence over observation. Connected with this, there are examples where observations that call into question widely held theories are suppressed or even denied, with people’s reputations and livelihoods being destroyed in that suppression. Along with the dishonesty of suppressing observations that call theories and models into question, there is scientific fraud, where scientific communications are deliberately distorted, or worse, lied about in order to support political correctness, individual reputations, company profits and other causes at the expense of the truth. For without the moral imperative to tell the truth that is part of Biblical theology, why do so? There is increasing suppression of communications about scientific discoveries for reasons connected with “ownership”, profit. But that which most threatens the future of science is religious, namely a belief that technological development equals the destruction of nature; that humans, by their mere existence, are a blight upon the face of the earth.
Therefore, in the absence of Biblical Christianity, the future looks bleak for science.
See also:
- Science
- Hebrew Thought
- Scientific Method
- Intelligent Design
- Criticism of evolution an example of opposing the herd mentality
