Making More Connections

In a previous article (Making Connections), I outlined five a priori commitments essential to scientific investigation and how they are connected to insights from scripture. The way in which the Christian worldview conceives of the universe, based on scripture, has established a basis from which science was able to get off the ground. These a priori commitments cannot be verified by science, but science is impotent without them. But there are more than just these five. Below, I will outline yet another five of these a priori commitments and make connections between scriptures which support them and the scientific thinking which has sprung from them.

The laws of logic

“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord…Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say ‘It is true’…let us argue the matter together” (Isaiah 1:18, 43:9, 26)

Aristotle is most often recognized as the one who described the laws of logic. Some would even say he discovered them, but it would be incorrect to say that he invented them. The laws of logic are self-evident, and can be recognized with or without the help of Aristotle. The passages above make it evident the prophet was utilizing logic: premises are made, evidence is required to support the premises, and the court is deciding whether the conclusion which has been made follows from the premises.

Science has a curious relationship with logic. Science makes considerable use of inductive arguments to either posit an explanation for an observed phenomenon or make recommendations based on some evidence. The hypotheses formulated by scientists contain the premises and conclusion of the argument. The data obtained by scientists serve to either support or falsify the premises of these arguments, but the premises and conclusions themselves are derived from outside the scientific method – they come from the minds of people – they are essentially immaterial and not subject to the scrutiny of science.

Reliability of our mind and senses

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands…” (1 John 1:1)

We know that we can sometimes be fooled by our senses, but we also recognize that this can be overcome by careful inspection and collaboration with others. The scrutiny expected in the scientific process involves multiple trials, peer review of results, and transparent reporting which allows for replication of experiments by third parties. When human subjects (who are very prone to bias) are involved in an experiment, scientists resort to blind and double-blind testing to make sure we have not deceived ourselves. 

This level of scrutiny is not unique to science. It is a common feature across academic disciplines – history, literary criticism, economics, and mathematics come to mind. It is apparent that the gospel writers had this in mind as well. The facts reported in all of the gospels involved multiple witnesses who were accessible at the time of writing for inquisition and confirmation. They cited known persons, locations and current events to tie the accounts to actual history. They provided details which would have only been accessible to those at that time which assures us these stories were not conjured up by later century story tellers. They intended to leave little doubt that all these events actually occurred – they were not just making it up or following a delusion.

The adequacy of language to describe the world

“And consider today (since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it), consider the discipline of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm, his signs and his deeds that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land…” (Deuteronomy 11:2-3)

There are some philosophers of science who are very doubtful about the transference of knowledge through language. This point of view serves to counter the notion that the history of science has been an ever-progressing knowledge set which builds upon previous knowledge. The consequences of this view are staggering. It leads us to the conclusion that we really don’t know anything at all, and anything we do refer to as a theory is simply a convenient fiction – it happens to work, so we’ll run with it. The detractors of this view are many, and the nuances in that discussion are many – too much for a simple blog post.

Epistemological doubters aside, most have a sense that we do in fact have the ability to transmit important facts and ideas across the generations. While words may change meaning, the past meanings of words may be deduced by context and through commentaries which have been written over time. The writers of Old Testament narratives had no doubt that the important events in the history of Israel could be passed down without their meaning being lost. That same commitment is embraced by scientists past and present who wrote down records of their experiments and conclusions.

Existence of values used in science (theory testing)

“Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright.” (Proverbs 20:10-11)

If there are two theories which purport to explain the very same observations, something outside of science itself must be used to determine which of the two theories is correct. As scientists worked out over time the systems which need to be employed for accurately describing and explaining the universe, they had to think about how to adjudicate between competing explanations. The list of what are known as theory virtues has grown over time. Michael Keas has reviewed a dozen different characteristics which are helpful in adjudicating differing explanations[1]. This process is complicated because no one virtue consistently rises above another as a chief consideration.

Again, science is not unique in its process of theory formation. Many academic areas have the same challenge of multiple theory development and the need to weigh out which one provides the best explanation. At bottom, these decisions are made by referencing external standards to determine which is correct. We find this to be true in the realm of morality as well. Despite the recent trend to resign morality to relativistic spheres, even the relativists will claim a sense of objective truths and objective morality – it is inescapable.  Scripture agrees that there is an external standard by which we judge things to be true or not.

The existence of numbers.

“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.” (Luke 12:6-7)

As science makes attempts to describe the universe it does so using the language of mathematics. Much has been written about the inexplicable correspondence between science and mathematics – how is it possible for something which is immaterial to map so well onto the material world? This of course is problematic for any who insist on a materialist world view[2].

While scripture provides numerous allusions to numbers and mathematics, their use seems to be of minimal interest by the Hebrews. Other ancient near east cultures made much better use of these in constructing buildings, identifying patterns in the movement of stars and planets, and accounting. They went far beyond just census and inventory – they developed systems of algebra and geometry. What is interesting in scripture is that God is characterized as having an interest in numbers and mathematics. If God uses mathematics, then He is the one who invented numbers in the first place: “All things were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1:16)

Early scientists were not slow in making this connection. As Galileo aptly put it, “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe”. The great astronomer Johannes Kepler was also convinced that mathematics is the key to understanding the universe. Of that work he said, “I was merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”

All together, these ten a priori commitments lay the groundwork necessary for science to operate. As stated in the previous article, if we give up on any one of these, science would be a fruitless effort cast adrift in uncertainty. Because they collectively find their support in Judeo-Christian scriptures, it is no surprise that the scientific revolution occurred within a culture that embraced a Christian worldview. While all scientists today may not ascribe to Christianity per se, they certainly are relying upon these truths which find their support in the Christian worldview.

---

[1] Michael N. Keas. “Systematizing the theoretical virtues”, Synthese (2018) 195:2761-2793.

[2] A short video describing the surprising effectiveness of mathematics: https://youtu.be/QJBOiZXkKu8