Jed Edgar

5-5-22

Origins of Science

When we started this class we were assigned to provide a definition of science as a

self-assessment. I defined science in two ways, the study of nature as well as the advancement

of human civilization. I claimed, “Science started out as a study of the world and sought to

define it in tangible evidence, however as the world has progressed, science was able to

provide advancements to humanity, and solutions to the consequences of the fall in effort to

create utopia.” However, while this might account for modern science, it is a limiting claim as

science is culturally dependent and fails to examine the subject within the context of the

previous centuries. The claim also perpetuates the myth of modern science. It is easy to fall

victim to the myth of modern science, easy to think that because our technology is more

advanced so is our culture, that because we live in the most “progressed” time we are better

and smarter than those who came before us. However, as we covered in class, this couldn’t be

further from the truth. Our science is powerful but not more productive than the cultures in other

places. So what is science? If my initial claim that science is the advancement of civilization

provides any truth, how did we get there? What are the consequences of this claim, how does it

promote the modern science myth? Over the course of this paper, I will explore the context of

science within previous cultures, how they fit within the scientific revolution and how that

provides the context for modern science and why it matters. The myth of modern science is

fraudulent because science is human enterprise that is culturally dependent and subject to

human failing and sometimes dictates what culture thinks.

The first thing we need to understand about the study of science, is that it only

developed when civilization was allowed to thrive. So within ancient civilization, this would be

Babylon and eventually Greece. The primary concern for every civilization and society is
ultimately survival. This is why location mattered so much within the ancient world. Settled

agriculture along riverbanks allowed for a more stable and steady food supply, which led to a

higher population and permanent structures. This in turn led to social stratification and a

leisured elite class (priest and leaders) who had time and resources for scholarly studies or

higher reflective nature. Life was dependent upon the river and rain. Once you have settled

agriculture you have a more dense food supply thus denser population and larger stratification

within society. Within early civilization, there were two elite groups, political leaders who can

swing the sword and protect and the priests and scribes were the literate elite who had time and

resources to compile careful records of astronomical data. Their understanding of nature was

the medium through which gods communicate, divination. For ancient culture, there was no

distinction between nature and the gods. Nature wass the expression of the gods, so the study

of the gods is what led to the first big scientific advancement: astrology.

The study of astrology connects back to the primal need for survival. The study of

astronomy was connected to agriculture as you can tell the seasons of growth, famine and

harvest. The sun marks out day and night, seasons solstices and equinoxes. These regularities

ensured the agricultural cycle. Because these regularites would mark out the seasons and thus

the growing environment for agriculture. This is about survival they’re trying to understand the

world they’re in so they don’t starve to death. Not only was the study of the sky for calendar

purposes; but also an attempt to understand the gods. They believed they had some level of

control to try and persuade the gods out of something nasty coming. They would perform rituals

and sacrifices to appease the gods in an attempt to keep what we would now call “natural

phenomena,” such as famine, drought, lightning or locusts, from devastating their lands and

thus food supply. However, not only was astronomy used for divination, it also had more

“practical” uses such as keeping time. Astronomy was pursued as part of worship which was to

insure among other things as food supply.

These very shifts affected the ways in which the thinkers of their times viewed nature. In

paganism traditions, each god is bound to nature in some form or element. but if you have only

one god and all of nature, then the purpose of that nature is then to point to that one God. This

suggests if you have a notion where there is God and creation there is a stronger distinction

between nature and the divine. Compared to puma Elish gods are completely infused within

nature; there is no distinction, you have a God who created nature and yet that nature is not

divine. Therefore understanding nature is a ladder towards understanding the divine is how

Middle Ages people view it.

So how did the middle ages view the purpose of nature? And where does it change from

the ancient purpose of nature? The Religions at the time believed there was a singular God and

his creation. This emphasis of their belief created a distinction between nature and the divine.

The supernatural realm, the realm of God, which many affectionately call heaven, was created

by God and the dwelling place of God. The natural realm, the realm of humans, was created by

God, for the purpose of habitating his creation. There is a separation between these two realms,

thus a distinction. We can take the purpose of man from the primary text of the bible– to give

glory to the creator and enjoy him forever–and apply that same purpose to the purpose of

nature. For medieval culture, the nature of nature was to point back to the creator. The beautiful,

frightful and chaotic elements of nature were a reflection of the glory and power of God.

According to Psalms 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work

of his hands.” contrayily we as humans are called to uphold the independent value of natural

creatures, and are committed to an ethic of responsible care and stewardship of the natural

world. These values were enshrined in the Old Testament, presupposed by Jesus Christ and

assumed throughout the New Testament. God’s greatest creation according to the great chain of

being, and reflecting his divinity.

science. The science of this era sought practical knowledge, they wanted to recover and

surpass the knowledge of the previous eras. Thinkers began criticizing scholasticism, in favor of

a more practical knowledge for applicable purposes. Before this time, philosophers primary goal

was more contemplative, they sought to understand nature to become better. But thinkers of the

era such as Paracelus and Francis Bacon sought active life, they wanted to understand nature

in order to use it (This new way of thinking still impacts the capitalistic thinking of today's world

more on this later). These thinkers viewed contemplation as unworthy of pursuit as it didn’t

account for tangible physical needs such as medicine. Both these thinkers invested within the

idea of applicable knowledge in different ways.

Paracelsus utilized elements of alchemy and astronomy to create a medical doctrine that

rejected the ideas of the past. He would invite non-academic healers to his lectures to display

their skills, as he was convinced those with first-hand experience knew more than the learned.

These knowledge seekers, who learned from experience rather than books, were more in touch

with the world and able in his opinion. He rejected and criticized the traditional Galenic medical

practices as it was primarily botanical. While his view of nature is less accepted, Paracelus was

still influential in how the practical and operational aspects of science have become core

elements of how we look at science to this day.

Francis Bacon had a similar influence upon the thinking of his time. While he did not

reject the arguments of philosophies of his time, he rejected its goals. Bacon wanted to

restructure the natural philosophy of his time into a more practical enterprise in order to improve

the welfare of human life. Bacon rejected the goal of contemplation of what was known, Bacon

imposed discovery. He looked for new knowledge, he wanted to take the secrets of the natural

world and manipulate them for humanity's benefit reclaiming the right to nature. Bacon

introduced a new way of thinking called inductivism, which is where you start your search for
knowledge with the particular and work up from there, which contrasted with Aristotle’s arguing

from the general to the particular. Bacon’s vision of knowledge and collection of it would later

inspire some to form the Royal Society. The primary objective of this applicable thinking was

eden. We could use nature and mechanization to correct the consequences of the fall. The early

modern period justified the study of nature as in its application to improving the material

conditions of life, better medicine, better machines, better agriculture etc. Bacon criticized the

Aristotelian emphasis of contemplation claiming it was immoral and unchristian. It achieved

nothing for the physical needs of humanity and therefore lacked the christian foundation he

claimed his applicable science did. Paracelsus, Bacon and thinkers like them sought to regain

what was lost to humanity in the fall. They thought they could use that knowledge to fix the

errors of it and make the world perfect just as the garden of Eden was without sin.

But how does any of this impact us now? What is the point of understanding the history

of science isn’t our science of today more advanced? The thinking of the scientific revolution still

impacts our world today. As our capitalistic system sucks the natural resources of the planet in

order to provide us with our products. That sounds eerily similar to Bacon’s idea of manipulating

nature's secrets for the benefits of humanity. The point of studying the scientific revolution and

the history before it, is to see that science is culturally cultivated and dependent upon culture yet

still influences the science of today's world. This idea that science is exploratory and that

mankind is nomadic by principle (which are ideas we see all over pop culture from JFK to star

trek), is a culturally developed idea from Bacon himself. This implication is scary because it

means that science–one of the most trusted institutions of our time–is capable of corruption due

to it being a product of its time. It is a human enterprise that is culturally dependent and subject

to human failing and sometimes science dictates what culture thinks. We can see just by looking

back 100 years that this racial pregitious was infused within our science. We see that

specifically in typology, which was the categorization of the human species by race. Science and
empirical evidence was used to support racist theories and ideas. This is troubling because it

begs the question, do we produce science that is moralistically neutral in today's age? If not,

where do those morals come from? Scholars argue sexism is still precedent within present

science laws. Centuries of bias have impeded the advance of human knowledge. “Since 2000,

women have earned more than half of the total number of science and engineering bachelor’s

degrees in the United States and more than half the doctorates. Yet after centuries of prejudice,

we remain a minority among scientific leaders overall” (Colwell). If science is a cultural

enterprise then our own preferences influence science, its theories, and application of laws.

Lastly, how does this impact us as Christians? God called us to be stewards of the Earth. This

means we are called to sustain the planet we live on. If the science of our day is using the

materials and slowly killing it we are called to stand against it. If the science of our day is racially

or sexually bias then we are called to be the voice of the voiceless and to stand for those who

cannot stand for themselves. As christians if we are aware that science is culturally dependent

and influences how we as a culture think, then it is in our best interest to influence culture and

science in a way that honors God or at the very least honors the world and the people of it.
 Work Cited

Colwell, Rita. “Women Scientists Have the Evidence about Sexism.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media

Company, 30 Aug. 2020,

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/women-scientists-have-evidence-about-sexis

m-science/615823/.