Bible Students

What Is Science?

I believe science must be conducted by way of five steps. Those are as following:

(1) Virtue Analysis: The first step in any scientific investigation is the analysis of one’s virtues. Science must be done with honesty and integrity, with a desire to uncover truth. Science can not be done without virtuous ambition at its foundation. 

(2) Worldview Analysis: The second step in scientific investigation is the analysis of one’s own worldview and philosophy of science. One must have an understanding of what science is and isn’t, and not attempt to misuse science outside of its normal field of study. Additionally, one must understand what is and isn’t possible in a true worldview, specifically in relation to theistic and atheistic worldviews, though also applied more broadly. For example, when reconstructing the life or sayings of Christ, is there any place for miracles? 

(3) Question and Hypothesis: The first stage of formal science is the exercising of the first two analyses. One must have the curiosity to ask questions, and the understanding of a true worldview to make proper hypotheses. In this stage, the goal is to have a direction for beginning the scientific search. 

(4) Testing and Collection: The second stage of formal science is the testing of the hypothesis through means of collecting and interpreting data. In this stage honesty and integrity is needed for collecting and interpreting data properly. Additionally, one’s worldview plays a large part in interpreting data, so a proper analysis of one’s worldview comes into play here. The means of collection may vary widely, but should correspond with the hypothesis. 

(5) Review and Reporting: This last step is the reviewing of one’s process and the honest reporting of their data. This may be an overlooked step, but the honest representation and communication of the data is a key part of proper science. This is a point which should be seriously thought through. The interpretation and presentation of data must be done honestly and without unwarranted slant. For instance, if one was to report, “Manuscripts of the New Testament have over 400,000 variants,” this may lead someone to the conclusion that the New Testament is not largely reliable, even if that’s not what the author actually believes. One could present raw data without the interpretation, “however, the vast majority of these variants are variant spellings throughout the Hellenised world.”

Answerable Question

An example of these five steps will be as follows:

(1) Virtue: This study must be done with honesty, integrity, curiosity, and care.

(2) Worldview: Science is the study of the physical and predictable world, though there are things outside of science which can not be reliably studied or accounted for, such as miracles (according to the theistic worldview I hold).

(3) Question and Hypothesis: How long will it take for a coin to drop from the top of this four-story building? Likely the best way to make a hypothesis is to apply a mathematical formula accounting for wind, air resistance, gravity, mass of the coin, height of the building, and initial speed of the drop. This would give us a prediction time of “x.”

(4) Testing and Collection: Drop the coin from the top of the building ten times and map the time until it hits the bottom. Take the average, minus any outliers (likely caused by either faulty testing or uncontrollable phenomenon). This can be done by an electronic drop-timer, which a coin is tied to. The coin is cut from the string, and the machine begins the timer, triggered by the lack of weight provided by the dangling coin. The coin drops onto a metal pad below, triggering the timer to stop. An internal computer accounts for the time for the electronic signals to travel from the two sensors to the computer, and the computer spits out the time. 

(5) Review and Reporting: If the experiment is done well and step four has been thoroughly thought out, then the last step is reporting the data with precision, as well as interpreting the data honestly. As explained above, irresponsible science interprets data vaguely in order to intimidate readers into a conclusion which does not naturally follow from the data. For example, if the coin drop was used poorly, the data should not be used to claim modern physics is unreliable, and by extension to support one’s metaphysical disposition that the natural world is an illusion. This is dishonest data reporting.

Discussion

Science without a bias is probably not actually possible. This is because science is based on a foundation of epistemology and metaphysics, which are both inherently biased, specifically in the realm of religion. As Christians, we have a bias toward the existence of God. Therefore we will view science through the realm of theism. Probably the closest thing to a “bias-less” science is natural atheistic science applied in a Christian worldview. We would both agree there are problems with this, when it goes beyond itself to vouch for the non-existence of God. Apart from attempting to disprove the existence of God through quasi-science, atheistic natural science is probably the closest one could get to non-biased science. And, if this sounds like nonsense, then good. Science should not be done without bias. We should be biased toward truth. If God exists, and I believe He does, then we should be biased to view science through theistic philosophy. Not all biases are bad. Instead, biases that lean toward falsehood are bad. Biases toward truth are good and should be applied.

In general, science itself is the study of reproducible events. Definitionally, miracles lay outside the realm of science. The study of God (which miracles would fall into) is a matter of philosophy. If you believe only things that science can prove are true, then can you prove that statement using only science? The philosophy of epistemology and metaphysics is preeminent to science. This is because the nature of reality (metaphysics) and the way of gaining knowledge (epistemology) are required to study a uniform reality (science). Miracles and the study of God are not outside of the study of philosophy (reason).

Faith and science are not opposites, rather they work together. Faith is the believing in things unseen, on the foundation of evidence. That evidence is sometimes attained through science, philosophy, or other systems. Science is the study of the natural world and understanding the implications derived from such studies. Faith is removing emotional states as reasons to believe or disbelieve something. If one says to have faith in God, they do not mean (I would hope) that they should blindly believe that God exists without reason. Rather, they mean to say that the person should continue to believe in God for the reasons they have, even though their emotional state leads them elsewhere. Abraham had faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead much after God revealed Himself to Abraham. The faith is the continuing to believe something shown to be true even in hard situations. Abraham did this by proving faithful to God even when his situation was hard. The reasons Abraham had for trusting God (paralleled to scientific evidence) stayed the same through his distress of attempting to sacrifice his son. While science is the discovery of certain information, one must have faith that these outcomes do not change arbitrarily, especially in the face of emotional or spiritual trials. When I sit in a chair, I have faith that the structural make-up of the chair will remain how it has in the past. This is not blind faith, but a sort of “scientific faith,” if the definition of science could be stretched for a time.