Chronological snobbery.

Science of their day.

Phenomenological science.

These related terms came up many times in our previous episodes, and we kept saying “sometime we’ll have to get into that in more detail.” Here we come through on that promise.

Clearly, the Biblical authors saw things differently than we do.

• the earth being unmovable, and the sun revolving around it
• human infertility … always a problem with the woman
• the soul … localized to the heart, kidneys, intestines, liver
• the weather … just read Job chapters 37 and 38
• the origins of the universe, of species, of humans
• the origins of language, music, agriculture, cities
• the making of Eve from Adam’s rib (you won’t believe two of the “scientific explanations” which have been given for this)
• bats being classified as a type of bird

But does that mean that we see things better than they did? That our understanding is so much better than theirs? Can we really justify this kind of chronological snobbery.

Sure, the Bible is not a science book for today. It might have been at one time … for people thousands of years ago, trying to make sense of the world they lived in. But all science books have a shelf life: their ability to explain fades as our understanding of a given subject increases. The curriculum needs to be updated. This is particularly true when it comes to our understanding of origins … origin of the universe … origin of life … origin of humans.

Science has improved our ability to understand/explain things in two ways.

First, by building better tools to see and measure things: this is “phenomenological science.” Telescopes to see farther; microscopes to see closer; space probes to put our eyeballs on the other side of the solar system; EEGs/ECGs to “listen” to the heart or to the brain; ultrasound to “listen” to the shape of a fetus, or the progression of a tumor; thermometers to replace subjective feelings with objective numbers.

Second, by using the scientific method: collect observations, come up with an explanation for those observations, and then … most importantly … do your best to disprove that explanation. Test the null hypothesis. The more the idea passes that test, the more you can trust it. (Science is not about certainty, but about increasing the probability of being right.)

So maybe we have a different scientific understanding, but is that the same as saying we have a better understanding? Maybe yes … but maybe no. We look at examples of modern science also being blinkered by group think, peer pressure, and -of-the-gaps thinking.

And is this line of questioning relevant only to science? Is it worth considering whether there was a “history of their day” … a “theology of their day” … an “ethics of their day”?

… your thoughts on this? Leave a comment below … stir the pot a little bit!

If you want to play this episode later on your device, look for Recovering Evangelicals in the iTunes Store, Podbean, Spotify, GooglePodcasts, or GooglePlayMusic.

If you want to help grow this pod-cast, please like and share with a friend. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find me on Twitter or Facebook.

Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page