Chapter 1: The Unexpected Origins of Scientific Thought

The premise of this article is that the scientific method's origins extend beyond the past few centuries, tracing back to the Old Testament. Join me on a historical exploration to understand the reasons behind its lasting impact and its relevance to contemporary science. The findings may surprise you.

The narrative of Western science resembles a classic hero's journey. It begins with an ancient civilization often characterized by ignorance and superstition. This society feared the unknown, attempting to pacify formidable natural forces through worship or magical practices. Then emerged the heroes, destined to liberate humanity from its "self-imposed tutelage," as Immanuel Kant described. Figures like Galileo and Newton are often seen as pioneers, challenging old paradigms while facing resistance from established institutions. As one brilliant mind meticulously calculated planetary orbits, his mother faced accusations of witchcraft, living in fear of execution. Ultimately, reason and scientific inquiry triumphed during the Enlightenment, laying the groundwork for modern society and science.

However, this journey began much earlier.

When we think of scientific reasoning, the Holy Bible is rarely the first reference. The contentious debates between creationists and atheists, sparked by discussions surrounding educational curricula in certain American states, have contributed to a perceived dichotomy between religion and science. Historically, figures like Galileo weren't adversaries of the Catholic Church merely for suggesting a heliocentric universe; rather, they were part of a larger discourse on knowledge and belief. Unfortunately, in many Western contexts, science and religion appear to be at odds.

This disconnect is not surprising, given that both domains have historically struggled to find common ground. However, if we set aside the accumulated misunderstandings and examine the scriptures from a fresh perspective, it becomes evident that the Old Testament's endurance is tied to what can be considered the first science book ever written.

Upon reading the Old Testament—beyond just Genesis—one might question why the Book of Deuteronomy remains included. It is arguably one of the most tedious texts, filled with over 600 commandments (far more than the well-known ten). Yet, its presence is pivotal for both the success of the Torah and the evolution of the scientific method. How so?

If we interpret the Bible not as a strictly historical document but as a "diary of humanity," as proposed by Carel van Schaik and Kai Michel, it chronicles our cultural evolution from early settlers to grand ancient empires. It does so uniquely by attributing responsibility to a singular God for nearly everything. In contrast to polytheistic traditions, where multiple deities necessitated extensive sacrificial practices to appease them, the monotheistic narrative left no one else to blame for misfortunes like illness or death.

Consequently, people turned the blame inward.

With one all-powerful and benevolent God, any wrongdoing must stem from humanity itself. The authors of the Old Testament perceived their actions as provoking divine anger, thus necessitating remedies. This is where Deuteronomy becomes significant. The commandments outlined are not abstract moral imperatives like "love your neighbor"; instead, they offer practical guidance, such as “dispose of your waste away from the camp.” Why would God articulate over 600 such rules? Because the authors believed these actions incited divine wrath.

This process likely began with the realization that certain behaviors led to illness, viewed as divine retribution. As effective rules emerged, they were documented and expanded. This process parallels what we now recognize as the scientific method. The Old Testament's remarkable influence stems from its role as an early, empirically supported medical guide for communities.

This revelation may not align with your expectations. It serves as a compelling reminder of how our perceptions can be limited by framing. Additionally, it highlights that scientific reasoning didn't suddenly emerge during the Renaissance; its roots run deeper than most people realize, possibly beyond our current historical understanding.

However, I recognize that not everyone may agree with this viewpoint, and I invite your thoughts in the comments below.

Become a medium member (affiliate link)

Chapter 2: Insights and Discussion