Someone who has explored various Christians assertions about apologetics might occasionally encounter the claim that the Bible describes scientific information that has only been confirmed in recent centuries, with the implication being that the verses that mention this information serve as evidence for the veracity of the Bible. In an era in which science is commonly regarded to have a grossly inaccurate epistemological status, the thought that the Bible contains valid scientific information might seem very appealing to some people.
As usual with apologetics and philosophy/theology in general, though, there are truths about the subject that are almost never even alluded to. The fact that science can only prove something about one's perceptions in the present moment aside (science cannot illuminate anything beyond this), there are still three major issues with the manner in which the apologists who appeal to the verses referencing scientific principles argue. All three of them must be acknowledged for one to have an honest understanding of miscellaneous "scientific" ideas in the Bible.
First of all, some of these verses are clearly not focusing on scientific matters. For example, Isaiah 51:6's description of how the universe will "wear out" is taken by some to be a direct affirmation of the second law of thermodynamics, but the statement has a very obvious eschatological context. The author is making a claim about the permanence of God's nature and contrasting it with the temporality of the cosmos. There is nothing of grand scientific importance here! This is true even if one is not acknowledging the fact that science cannot epistemologically justify a worldview to begin with [1], as only logic can prove metaphysical facts.
Second, some of the scientific phenomena mentioned in the Bible could have easily been observed during the time in which the Bible was written (meaning there is nothing particularly special about them being mentioned in the Bible). The examples of passages sometimes taken to reference the hydrological cycle (Job 26:8, Ecclesiastes 1:7) suffice. Phenomena like evaporation and precipitation are hardly difficult to observe, so any verses that describe or allude to them are not strong evidences for divine inspiration!
Third, even if these verses clearly elaborated upon significant, then-undiscovered scientific laws, they still couldn't serve as evidence for the veracity of the Bible until the discoveries were made at much later dates. Job 26:7, for instance, is sometimes thought to affirm that the earth does not rest on top of some other object of matter--and it genuinely does teach this. However, no one could evidentially support this claim until the advent of modern technology, as one cannot tell if the earth seems to rest atop another material body or not by simply looking at the ground or sky. It follows that the verse could not have been appealed to as "scientific" evidence for Christianity until recent times--meaning those who emphasize the verse are citing a coincidence more than they are establishing a crucial fact about the Bible.
One of these facts alone nullifies the apologetics value of the scientific information in the Bible, but together they render many of them almost entirely useless (one major exception is the Big Bang of Genesis 1, but this event can be logically proven without the need for scientific inquiry or analysis of the Bible [2]). Some are so eager to provide evidence for the veracity of the Bible that they are not very thorough when they examine the quality or significance of their evidences, real or alleged. The relevance of the scientific verses in the Bible is among the things that are often dramatically overstated in an effort to persuade instead of prove.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-value-of-scientific-awareness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
No comments:
Post a Comment