Resumen

SPANGENBERG, Izak. The Bible, the Christian religion and the natural sciences. Tydskr. geesteswet. [online]. 2023, vol.63, n.4, pp.947-970. ISSN 2224-7912.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2224-7912/2023/v63n4a11.

The article critically assesses the quality of the research of four articles published under the theme "Faith and the Natural Sciences" in the Journal of Humanities, 63(2):192-261. Lewis Vaughn's statement in his book The Power of Critical Thinking is taken as cue for assessing the articles. He wrote (Vaughn, 2005:3): "Critical thinking focuses not on what causes a belief, but whether it is worth believing. A belief is worth believing, or accepting, if we have good reasons to accept it." The conclusion of the authors already expressed in the first of the articles, namely that the Bible and the Christian religion support the results of modern science, is scrutinised critically in the current article. In the first section the issue of how researchers are able to distinguish between truth and falsity is discussed. The authors of the articles under discussion answered this question in terms of a scientific method consisting of the following steps: (1) observation, (2) questioning, (3) formulation of a hypothesis, (4) challenging the hypothesis, (5) formulation of a theory. However, they are of the opinion that research done by natural scientists differs from the kind of research done by researchers in the humanities, social sciences and religion. According to them the latter group may commence their research with presuppositions. Research in theology may serve as an example. According to their reasoning religious convictions are allowed to guide the research. They therefore distinguish between religious convictions and interpretations based on religious convictions respectively. Researchers in theology may critically assess the quality of the interpretations - but never the religious convictions themselves since this can lead to questioning of eternal religious truths. While I agree with their exposition of the scientific process as a method of discovering the truth about an aspect of the world in which we live, I argue against their conviction that research done in the humanities, social sciences and religion differs from that done in the natural sciences and that faith convictions are allowed to play a role in the research process. My argument is illustrated with reference to two examples - one from the natural sciences, and one from the human sciences. The example from the natural sciences focuses on astronomy and the paradigm shift brought about by Copernicus's (1774-1543) and Galileo Galilei's (1564-1642) investigations. Prior to their research findings astronomers were convinced that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the sun, moon and planets revolve around the earth. The abovementioned observations led to the discarding of the geocentric model of the universe. However, Copernicus's and Galileo's new hypothesis was not immediately accepted. It took time before the heliocentric model of the universe was accepted. This shift can also be called a shift in perspective. The different scholars looked at the same natural phenomena but saw different pictures. The identification of sources in the Pentateuch serves as an example of a similar process in the human sciences. Jean Astruc (1684-1766) believed that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. However, his research of the book of Genesis revealed that Moses had used different names for God: Elohim and Yahweh. This led Astruc to formulate the hypothesis that Moses had used two older sources (E and J) to write the book of Genesis. He also identified a third source consisting of smaller fragments in Genesis. This was the beginning of the so-called four-sources hypothesis concerning the origin of the Pentateuch and resulted in the identification of the sources J, E, D, and P. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) used this hypothesis to argue that the priestly material (the laws, regulations and prescriptions) originated after the prophetic material. He discarded the old conviction that the priestly material originated during the early history of Israel. This also led to questioning of the conviction that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. It would appear that the authors of the articles under consideration are totally oblivious of recent research findings, since they still refer to Moses as the author of Genesis. In the second section of the current article the relationship between truth and history is discussed. In the first sub-section of this part of the article the dawn of a historical consciousness in the Western world is considered. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) benefitted from such consciousness. He merged history with biology and argued that animal and plant species are not static, but that they do change over time. This led to his book The Origin of Species published in 1859 which the authors of the four articles erroneously referred to as the 18^th century. The second sub-section of this part of the article discusses Thomas Kuhn's (1922-1996) identification of paradigms and paradigm shifts in the history of the natural sciences. It is subsequently argued that the history of biblical research reflects similar paradigms and paradigm shifts and concludes that there was a major paradigm shift towards the end of the 19^th and the beginning of the 20^th century. This shift entails a different look at the Bible. The Bible was no longer regarded as a special book containing the words of God. Rather, scholars became convinced that the Bible was entirely a human book. James Barr (1924-2006) eloquently formulated it as follows (1973:120): "If one wants to use the Word-of-God type of language, the proper term for the Bible would be Word of Israel, Word of some leading early Christians." The previous two sections of the current article identified the defects in the arguments entertained in the articles under discussion (June, 2023). The authors'assumption that research in the humanities and social sciences differs from scientific research is found to be problematical. Furthermore, they would appear to disregard the research history of the subjects they are comparing, since no mention is made of the paradigm shift in biblical studies. But that is not all, the authors also superimposed their convictions onto the text of the Bible as if such convictions were shared by people living in the ancient Near Eastern world. In the third section of the current article Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-3:24 are properly analysed as etiological stories to drive home the nail that the research as reflected in said articles is unconvincing.

Palabras clave : Christian religion; natural sciences; biblical creation narratives; Genesis 1-3; scientific method; biblical studies; theory of evolution; paradigms; paradigm changes; hypotheses; theories; truth; etiological narratives; Pre-Adamites; Intelligent Design.

        · resumen en Africano     · texto en Africano     · Africano ( pdf )