I propose that the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature to generate knowledge about the physical world is not, as many claim, unscientific or (dare I say) 'supernatural', but instead perfectly good science differing only in results (by means of different inputs) from presently accepted knowledge in the overall scientific community. To clarify, I am not addressing specifically the
knowledge itself that is so generated, but rather the
methodologythat is, the generation of knowledge about the physical world based on the reading of histories.
I also propose that the ramifications from dismissing these methods as unscientific undermine the
entire framework of science and the scientific ideals of investigation, skepticism, and minimally assumptive explanations (Occam's Razor). That many in the 'scientific community' are so quick to dismiss these methods as unscientific quackery shows their lack of respect for this framework and these ideals; and these prejudices work hard against the virtues of the scientific method that make it so much a valuable tool of discovery.
To illustrate this point, and justify as properly scientific the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature in generating knowledge about the physical world, allow me to lay out the following example:
A young man in an early human social group is just beginning to take interest in learning. His young age brings him fascination of all things old, and he wishes to learn the age of the human race. He lacks the aid of modern technological equipment, and so has no way of examining things in the physical world to determine how old the human race might be. He decides to ask his parents, who tell him that the human race is older than they are, and then proceed to tell him a history of his tribe. This history goes back about five generations, before which, his parents tell him, they have no evidence of anything existing at all. "Interesting," he thinks, "the only evidence I have, the story of my people, tells me the human race is at least five generations old. But I wonder what other tribes can tell me; perhaps they have information that goes back further."
He goes around the valley, asking the elders of the various tribes how many generations their tribes go back. Some tell him four, others five, and a few tell him six. "How interesting! So, my additional evidence tells me that the human race is a little older than five human generations: about six. So, using only the evidence I have at my disposal, and making as few assumptions as possible, I can conclude that humans have been around for about six generations, or 300 years."
Never one to be satisfied with a single answer, though, he continues to look for more and more information that may help him refine his conclusion, always aware that he may be wrong at the moment, and so can never stop questioning.
This young man, in his search for knowledge, has investigated the only thing he has the means for investigating and has come to a tentative conclusion that is based only on the evidence available and requires as few assumptions as possible. In every shape and form, this is precisely the way the modern scientific method has been designed to function. Anyone who would argue otherwise would have to accept the following as true of the scientific method:
The scientific method requires modern technology;
The scientific method should lead one to conclusions that are in line with the modern scientific consensus;
The scientific method cannot be used with certain evidence.
The result of rejecting these (obviously rejectable) consequences is that we must accept that histories, such as the Bible, constitute evidence and that their use in discovering truths about the world qualifies as scientific. It would be fallacious to fault any application of the scientific method for any of the above-mentioned features (lack of technology, failure to agree with current data, being the 'wrong' evidence). Nevertheless, it is commonly claimed that these methods are not scientific by folk who simply dislike the conclusions that are drawn. Utlimately this is representative of the faulty thinking that science is about particular
sources, when in actuality, science is about the
method of manipulating and interpreting those sources.
So, for this thread, I would like to discuss the following points (and any of their possible implications):
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
Does use of the Bible and other histories represent an appropriate application of these methodologies?
How can we address the implications of these two points as they relate to our understanding of the conclusions derived from the different inputs, that is, if use of the Bible is properly scientific, then why is it 'wrong' and what/who is the cause of its 'wrongness'?
Jon
Is It Science?
Edited by Jon, : + subtitle
Check out Apollo's Temple!
™ Version 4.2