"Scientific Method"
In his book, We Be Brethren, brother J. D. Thomas has explained in the language of the common man just what "Scientific Method" for determining truth is. According to him Francis Bacon (1561-1626) is the author of the type reasoning that led to "Scientific Method" of study. Some, then, date this method of reasoning as having started about four hundred years ago. In more "common language" this method means that you do some observing, then you analyze some, then you form some hypotheses or make some guesses, then you observe some more, may be make some experiments, and reach the climax of the method by verification, and you have arrived at some truth. The author of the book claims that the system has been accepted by people in all types of life and used by every one in every day thought.
Another idea that goes along with "Scientific Method" is that not just any one is capable of observation so as to be able to form a hypothesis. It takes some one who is educated in a particular field to make a good guess in that field. On some subjects. an untrained thinker could not even do a good job thinking. In other words you must have special training in a particular field of thought before you are qualified to make any statements in that field that make any sense. Or, it seems to me, the brother is trying to say that if you have not been taught "Scientific Method" of approach that you are not really capable of determining what the truth of the Bible is, or when a New Testament example is binding or is not binding. If this were not his purpose I do not see why he included the middle paragraph on page 15 of his book.
But it just occurred to me since I have observed some of the writings of A. Campbell, J. W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb and some others, that since "Scientific Method" is four hundred years old, then why did not some of them use it to arrive at the truth of the New Testament and to determine when an example is binding. It would seem that these men had the ability to understand facts, to make observations, to analyze and verify them and arrive at truth, not perfectly but to a marked degree in many respects. Certainly I do not accept these men as authorities as to what the church is to believe and practice, but I respect their ability and learning as well as their sincerity. They are to be regarded as among the ablest teachers in restoring and defending the teaching of Christ as set forth in the New Testament by inspired men. Yet, as far as I have found they never used "Scientific Method" as the criterion for discovering the will of God. They accepted the Old and New Testaments as the completed revelation of the will of God and used their reason to determine what was revealed there.
Who is using "Scientific Method" for discovery of religious truth? Where is this type reasoning found today? It so happens that in the city where I live at the present time there is a university of considerable standing in the academic world. It has quite a large library that contains books of almost every hue and color when it comes to teaching. Among this collection is a large number of books written by scholars of the "liberal" type. In describing "Scientific Method" one author says that it involves four steps: observation, hypothesis, implication, and verification, which is the climax. It is said to be a method of refined common sense to be applied to various problems, and the suggestion is made that the author sees no reason why it cannot be applied to religious experience as well as to any other and especially to the field of the physical order. This method of arriving at truth is used largely among those who are certainly liberal, that is, less conservative, in their teaching regarding the religion of Christ. Some of them, I would say, are theistic evolutionists.
One author states that the climax of scientific method is "verification." He says, "Mill emphasized the procedure according to which we observed what happens in circumstances to which the hypothesis applies, deliberately instituting such circumstances if need be. Since this procedure seems to be so reasonable and so harmless, many are surprised when they are made to realize that this principle of verification depends upon a long-recognized logical fallacy." (The Logic of Belief, David Elton Trueblood, pages 43, 44). This same author writes, "Those who use scientific method most, do not ordinarily have for it the superstitious reverence felt by so much of the public, but rather recognize that it is the best way we have, though admittedly far from perfect. The classic statement on this subject is from one of the greatest men in the entire history of science, Sir Isaac Newton: 'And although the arguing from experiments and observations by induction be no demonstration of general conclusions yet it is the best way of arguing which the nature of things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much stronger, by how much the induction is more general.' "In other words the more times you find a thing or the more examples of a thing you discover the stronger the proof is. After quoting Newton, as above given, the same writer continues, "The conclusion to which we are led in regard to scientific method is that it is a good method, but not a method which is foolproof or productive of absolute certainty in any realm." (Emphasis mine, LGR.) 'We are willing to go on with high probability as the guide of life, but it is important that we should know what we are doing in that case." (Ibid. pages 46, 47).
But this is the basis of the "principle" brother Thomas uses in his book by which to determine whether brethren have been right in the past, or actually, to show that brethren for a hundred and fifty years have used methods of Bible study and "interpretation" that have led to erroneous conclusions, or have not been able to determine whether an example of apostolic approval is binding or not. And, yet, the author quoted herein says that it is not a foolproof method productive of absolute certainty in any realm. Do we want or will we be satisfied with any thing less than absolute certainty in the living of the Christian life? Are we "willing to go on with high probability as the guide of life"? or do we demand absolute certainty of the inspired revelation from God as the guide of life? It has always been my idea that we have a way that is right and cannot be wrong. Is this true? Or was this some thing not arrived at by scientific method? But from the use of scientific method, according to Dr. Trueblood, we can not be absolutely certain that we are right in any thing we teach and practice in the church today.
There may be more to this emphasis on scientific method than meets the eye. One Dr. has written much, lectured extensively and testified on Communism before a congressional committee. He states that many people are attracted by the Communist goal and warns against it. But this author and lecturer says that the movement should be judged by its method rather than its goal. We quote: "When the Communists are asked by what means they propose to regenerate the human race, they have a ready answer. 'Science.' They loudly affirm 'We are scientists. Science has transformed the material world, Science has transformed the world of agriculture. We propose to use science to transform human nature itself. Thus will science graduate to maturity and receive its crown of glory."
. . . They become infatuated with scientific method and catch a vision of a limitless future in the service of this mistress. This explains why scientifically-minded students form the most susceptible group of people to Communism." After stating that the generally accepted idea that Communism is a working-class movement, he gives a reply he made to a man who expressed this idea, which we quote: "I could mention Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Molotov, Bulganin, Mao Tse-tung, Liu Shao Chi, Hiss, and Whittaker Chambers. In truth, every outstanding world Communist figure became one, not as a son of toil, but as a student intellectual, materialist in philosophy, atheist in faith, and scientific in outlook." Now, does brother Thomas propose to remake, transform the teaching and practice of the church by scientific method applied to New Testament teaching?
Another author says, "The knowledge of God must be ultimately subjected to scientific method." Again, "All knowledge must depend ultimately upon science." In my humble judgment brother Thomas has been digesting too much teaching and philosophy of men who do not accept God's revelation as inerrant and infallible. Scientific method depends on empiricism. What does this mean? Look up the definition of the word in any good dictionary. Webster's College Dictionary gives it, "Pursuit of knowledge by observation and experiment." "2. The philosophical theory attributing the origin of all knowledge to experience . . ." If we simply accept God's word for what it says without any ifs, ands, or buts, we will be well pleasing unto him, if we do them. And men did not have to wait until scientific method was discovered before they could determine and understand what that word says. And, if it takes scientific method to understand the word of God, then what happened to the thousands who lived before its discovery? and to thousands now living, what will happen, who do not know what this "new" method is for finding out the truth of God's word, who cannot even begin to understand what brother Thomas is talking about in his book on scientific method? All knowledge of God's plan of salvation must depend on the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the word of God and not on the "science" of any man. People do not have difficulty in understanding what the text of the New Testament says one must do to be saved from sin, and be saved in heaven. The difficulty is in getting them to believe and do with all the heart what is said in the text, and that only.