THE Scientific Method is a Misunderstanding

Elementary school science class taught me a basis outline of “the scientific method”. I do not recall the specifics but what has stuck with me is the overall flow of: hypothesis, test, measure, and conclusion. Recently I was informed that “the scientific method” is incorrect. Not the method, but the idea that there is THE (or just one) scientific method. Different sciences have different methods.

For instance physics has a method that works for Newtonian physics but quantum physics is more theoretical than material. Biologist have the benefit of knowing the results of their hypothesis much quicker than geologists who have to have a different method while waiting eons for rocks to move. The sciences have methods that make sense in their field but might not make any sense in another field.

Of course, these different methods are neither better nor worse than one another. While these methods are different in their specifics, in a general sense these different methods are unified in their efforts to better understand the mysteries of the world.

These different methods also contribute to a humility among the most respected scientist. A zoologist does not over reach into the field of astronomy in order to correct or condemn. The zoologist knows there are limits to her field and her understanding and those same limits exist in the astronomist. Each field respects the methods of the other fields. There is no attempt to prove the superiority of one fields methods over another. Criticism comes from within the same field - chemists argue with chemists.

For as much as religion has to teach the sciences, I wonder if religion has something to learn from science. 

The Problem with Science

Science is fantastic. It is amazing what medical science can understand about the human body and healing it. It is mind boggling what physics shows us about the mysteries of the world. It is humbling when a geologist points out a layer of rock that is millions of years old. Science is fantastic. 

Science is constantly in pursuit of the truth. Previously I pointed out that when anyone is engaged in truth telling they are in the prophecy business. Prophecy is being able to tell what will happen in the future if the current reality does not change. You can do this at home. What do you think will happen in the future to a person if they stopped eating and drinking? Yes, they will die. When you speak this truth to someone suffering from anorexia this simple truth becomes a very difficult thing to say. Prophets have a simple message that is difficult to say, which is why there are so few prophets. 

And this is where science is a great blessing. Science systematizes truth telling. Science gives a weight and authority to the prophet. So much authority is given to the truth telling and prophetic voice of science that it is a bit of a problem. It puts prophets voice as more important than other voices.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul talks about different spiritual gifts are needed for the body of Christ to function. In fact he goes on to say that all gifts are equally important even though some in the Corinth church think that the voice of those who speak in tongues are more important than other voices. Paul argues that all gifts are important and no one gift is more important. He then uses the famous body image where the body is more than an eye and more than a hand. 

Just as Corinth church had those who put more authority in speaking in tongues, we have a culture now that puts more authority in truth telling (AKA prophecy). 

And this is the problem with science these days. It is so wonderful and great that we all give it a disproportionate amount of authority in our lives.

We need truth tellers. We also need those who are able to discern the signals from the noise (the gift of wisdom). We need those who are able to discern the moral from the possible (the gift of discernment). We need those who are able to inspire the downtrodden (gift of faith) we need those who are able to reconcile us together (gift of healing). 

Some of these other gifts do not have the measurable data that science benefits from. That does not mean that these other gifts are less important or that those who use these gifts are to be discarded. Science cannot help reconcile people together. Science cannot help us forgive ourselves. Again, this is not to say that science is bad, it just is one voice that is needed in body for the common good. 

We need science. We need truth tellers. But we have a problem when we elevate the gift of truth telling over the other gifts. This was true of Corinth and this is true today. 

How Science is Doing Prophecy

This bonsai tree has little to do with this post but I know this image is not copyrighted.

Prophecy has gotten a bad rap lately and it could be a number of reasons why this is the case. First the people who tell us that the world is going to end on some date and then the world does not end on that date gives us reason to question anyone who "prophesies" about the future. Another reason is that we live as products of the scientific revolution and we are convinced that looking into crystal balls is a gimmick and a scam. 

The unfortunate thing is that we have all misunderstood prophecy and relegated it to the realms of reading tea leaves, Ouija boards, and hucksters.

At the core prophecy is about truth telling. Go back and read the Bible and those who are prophesying. They are talking about their current realities and if those current realities do not change what the obvious conclusion will be. Prophets also are ones who speak the truth that there is always hope, regardless of the situation. There is always a dawn coming, even in the darkest places. Prophets are truth tellers and the thing that science prides' itself on is truth telling. 

Science is doing prophecy. 

Science told the truth about smoking increases lung cancer.

Science told the truth about germs causing disease and not curses.

Science told the truth about the world being round and the sun at the center of our orbit.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. The great irony is that for all the scientists who do not "believe" in prophecy, they are actually the ones who are doing a darn good job at being prophetic.

And just like there are people today who debate how the prophecies in the Bible should be interpreted, so to there are people today who debate how the prophecies of science should be interpreted:

Is "fracking" safe? Where do subatomic particles go when they disappear? Is there another "human-like" animal "out there"? How did the dinosaurs die out?

When we are truth telling we are in the realm of prophecy. The next post will address why all this prophecy is a problem. 

Cleanliness is next to Godliness? Science Suggests Maybe Not

Many religious rituals involve a washing or a bathing. This washing/bathing symbolically connects the physical cleanliness with a spiritual/moral purity. Washing is a powerful symbol for a number of reasons and Christianity uses this symbol in baptism, in telling the story of Jesus' last supper and even at his trial. When I was working for the Catholic Church I would help the priest symbolically wash his hands before celebrating communion and even as a minister today, I put hand sanitizer on my hands prior to communion. 

While the Church has long understood the validity of the sacrament does not depend upon the moral character of the minister (which is why I will not re-baptize you) we still hold onto the connection between physical and moral purity. 

Dr. Thalma Lobel writes in her Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence about a study about bathing and honesty. Here is the set up:

People were given a test and when the time was up, the answer sheet was given to each person to "check their answers". The people were to use the answer sheet to mark on their own pages the number of incorrect answers they gave. They found that some people used the answer sheet and changed some of their original answers and gave themselves a better score.

Some in the group were asked to take a shower prior to the test and others were not. The assumption was that those who took the shower before the test would be physically clean and thus influenced to be morally clean when it came test time. However the study showed that those who were more likely to lie or cheat were those who took a shower prior to the test.

The reason? The researchers suggest that those who took the bath "felt clean" (both physically and morally) and thus felt they had a little more "room to get dirty". 

Clergy are constantly in a position of being physically clean. We go into hospitals and must wash a our hands. We perform rituals that require a physical washing as a part of the ritual. We are expected to have clean clothes and look "professional' and "put together", and if not then we question the if the man who looks disheveled is a very good clergy person. Clergy expectation/stereotypes involve descriptors like being "squeaky clean", using "clean" never "foul" language", and avoiding the "dirty side" of life (such as smoking and drinking and rated R movies that deal with the macabre). Could these expectations of clean clergy ironically, contribute to clergy feeling more like we have room to "get a little dirty"? 

Maybe this is in part why Jesus was not in favor of his disciples washing their hands before eating?

“Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’”

— Mark 7:1-5