Introduction
The dichotomy between science and religion is one of the most debated topics in theology. There is a large variety of approaches to hermeneutics and Bible analysis, and the recognition of science in sacred texts is one of them. Moreover, one can understand science as either a conceptual approach to learning or a specific methodology for acquiring new absolute truth. Ultimately, the current research paper examines relevant literature on the topic, arguing that the former understanding of science exists and plays a significant role in the Bible.
Definition of Science
To prove the paper’s thesis, it is critical to determine science as a conceptual term because it is evident that the modern state of science, including the space industry and atomic energy, for instance, did not exist two thousand years ago. At that time, there was no unified understanding that such technological developments could be possible due to a lack of specific knowledge. Hence, one can argue that science is the objective analysis of the observable world, and the misconceptions that existed two thousand years ago could still be considered science because, at that time, they were the absolute truth.
This approach encourages learning through empirical practice, but science also concerns a more philosophical understanding of the world. It is another relevant dichotomy of science, which implies that new knowledge can be generated by observing the real world or building hypotheses and proving them (Woodford, 2020). The second option requires a significant degree of creativity, critical thinking, and an open mind, and this approach is definitely reflected in the Bible. Such curiosity is in human nature that God encourages, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea” (English Standard Bible, 2001, Gen. 1:28). Moreover, in his discussion, Averbeck (2020) highlights the significance of the “current” state of the world, implying that observation and creativity, as parts of science, only exist at the present time. Hence, the current paper argues that science is in the Bible, although this iteration of science is significantly more conceptual than a structured methodology of the 21st century.
Observable World
To further prove the paper’s thesis, it is critical to discuss how people’s observations and curiosity are reflected in the Bible. The concept of the Observable World is a crucial term in this context because it means that science cannot explain things that people cannot observe (Averbeck, 2020). Ultimately, at that technological level and state of general education, people had no way of acquiring more specific knowledge about the world (Woodford, 2020). Hence, science must have revolved around the Observable World, and people had to draw conclusions from the existing body of knowledge and their spiritual beliefs.
In its conceptual sense, it is the definition of science that bases its findings on observation and experimentation, and when God inspired the Bible, he ensured that people could understand the writings. To achieve this objective, he did not use more specific knowledge that was unavailable to people at the time because it was irrelevant and complicated. As Averbeck (2020) writes in his reconciliation of religion and science, “God has kept it simple and to the point. We are the ones who have made it complicated” (p. 8). Ultimately, science exists in the Bible to the extent that people could understand two thousand years ago according to the general level of knowledge.
Counterarguments
Lastly, there is a large number of counterarguments stating that the scientific findings in the Bible, such as human genealogy stemming from Adam and Eve, are, in fact, unscientific. This position implies that it is critical to interpret the Bible through a lens of religious studies and not science, discrediting the current paper’s thesis. However, Averbeck (2020) puts substantial emphasis on how “God did not intend to deal with it when he inspired the writing of the Bible” (p. 5). It reverts the argument back to the Observable World, implying that God merely did not provide information to people that they could not yet understand. In this context, it was meaningless for God to offer people more specific knowledge that they could not directly observe or comprehend (Averbeck, 2020). Ultimately, these counterarguments deal with the modern definition of science, implying that the human understanding of the world in the 21st century was the same as the one two thousand years ago, but it is a false assumption, and it is critical to discuss science according to its current realities.
Conclusion
The current research paper has shown that science is indeed in the Bible, albeit in a more conceptual and philosophical iteration compared to contemporary scientific methodology. Humans’ striving to learn and understand the world around them through the lens of observation and creativity is the central component of science, and the Bible explicitly reflects this phenomenon. In summary, people two thousand years ago had less general knowledge about the objective world, but it does not discredit their pursuit of knowledge through observation and experimentation, which is generally recognized as a science.
Reflective Summary
Writing the current paper was an enriching experience for me as it made me think about the conceptual understanding of terms that people frequently take for granted. At first, I thought about the direct mentions of science in the Bible, such as the water cycle, but I realized that this approach is less thought-provoking than a more in-depth analysis of what science exactly is. I am grateful for the opportunity to write on this topic, and I believe that it improved my critical thinking competencies and understanding of God’s message.
References
Averbeck, R. E. (2020). Reading creation in the Bible in light of science today. Peaceful Science. Web.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Woodford, P. J. (2020). Philosophy in the science classroom: How should biology teachers explain the relationship between science and religion to students? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 937-950. Web.