The Language of Science

Tetrapolygon_perspective.jpgScience is toolshed of deductive tools.  At it’s core: logic.  The framework and perspectives used by scientists are virtually the same as those used by mathematicians – in fact, mathematics is often referred to as being synonymous with the category of science.  However, one thing sticks out to me here as ironic.  With the rapidly shifting world changing around us as a result of technological advancements due to science, science itself is locked into a limited deductive capacity.  Logic is as old as the ancient Greeks.  The word actually originates from the Greek word “logos” meaning word.  There is a long history connected to the multipurpose concept of logic, which can also be synonymous with reason.  It is further ironic, then, to discover a mathematical discovery of a “chaos theory”.  The Greeks are recognized most for their utilization of logic, but the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians before them understood concepts of geometry, sophisticated language, and astrological investigation.

Today, science is considered the uninterrupted conclusionary apparatus for confirming truth.  But one place (among others) is in the linear nature it is built on.  Logic is archaic in that is based on a base-2 language: black or white, on or off, in or out, 1 or 0.  Binary.  Yes, our current cutting edge of science includes quantum experimentation with superpositions and qubits, but it is still just an extension of a base-2 language, and interestingly, computer scientists are still having difficulty trying to position qubits in such a way that true quantum computing is achieved.  Logic Is, according to the field of neurology, contrasted with the concept of intuition.  Where logic is linear, intuition is peripheral.  One is direct, the other is indirect.  While it would seem direct is better, the “functional-flux” of intuition opens up computation to resemble that of the human brain.  On the outside, we perceive all computation as logical, including how we approach a problem, but in reality, things like experiences, feelings, and worldviews are not factored in to our problem solving.

Logic beginning to be acknowledged as limited.  A linear approach is simply not capable of multitasking – which is something our world is craving – perhaps because we are actually wired that way.  A look into our brains or greater nervous systems will reveal a very peripheral design.  A very reactive and interconnected state of function.  If it really is the case that human beings are relational by nature, then logic is really a pipe dream, a bottleneck we have retained as an analytical device for a defining how things work and what is real.  While brute force is still a viable option for unlocking the secrets of the universe, a relationally-connected perspective might enable a much-improved discovery time, with greater post-analysis interfield effects.  Where logic fails in one area, or shows signs of deprecation, may be the suspect of other areas using the same archaic deduction method.

Scientific Theological Terminology


There is a recognized language of science.  Empirically discoverable components are: Hypothesis, Theory, and Law.  These have a inductive or deductive order that they follow to a more concrete conclusion.  This process takes unassuming and objective approach to the discovery how things work in our universe.  While technically science is limited to empirical discoveries, science has methods that are applicable in other disciplines that may contribute to more clarity on a matter.  Theology has a likewise similar analogical tradition: Doctrine, Theology, and Law.

Just as an interpreted component of the universe is conceived as explanatory in the science fields, theological/biblical interpretation likewise moves from tentative local doctrines, to a highly scrutinized theological framework.  If, and only if, the framework appears to remain in all possible scenarios, science would classify such as thing as a law — a universal truth of the physical universe.  However, theology is dealing with much of a different type of experimental analytical process.  Theology approaches the development of doctrines through one of several types of filters, which not every theologian agrees on.

Some theologians acknowledge Scripture alone to bear authoritative capacity on the forming of doctrinal hypotheses, however, even with an exclusively Biblical hermeneutic, several factors contribute to how doctrines are arrived at.  Once doctrines are determined, they usually augment greater theological corners that have stood the test of time in theological tradition.  Consider the tenants of Protestant Calvinism, Arminianism, or Catholicism.  Even these clearly delineated theological corners are rooted in prior interpretive development through the careful study and prayerful consideration of theologians who have come before.  Several of these theological frameworks overlap in many areas, and some lack coverage that others may hold.  At the third level, theologians are, like philosophers, interested in arriving at the absolute truth.  Truth has been called the correct description of reality.  This is an undisputed goal of every theologian, as all acknowledge there was one things were done.

However, the nature of human reason limited the true arrival at truth.  Epistemological confidence is an evasive mist.  Different theological systems are the best conclusions we have in the field of theology.  Furthermore, God is said by many to exist outside of our frame of reference, potentially existing in spectrums that we are unable to perceive of.   Scientific methods are very limited in comprehending a being who exists outside of a physical existence, or simultaneously in physical spirituals realms.  Science have been able to speculate based on the microscopic discoveries of molecules, atoms, quantum physics theories, but these are indirectly observed, since man has to use tools that were developed with the assumption that what is being observed is the correct way to observe/interact with it.

Systematic theology has a very appealing status for modernists, as it leads to conclusions that are beyond theological models of interpretation, they intend to define who God is and how He works.  The difficulty with this is that the Bible reveals a story rather then a theological dissertation.  God didn’t ever what man to understand the laws that He created the universe with; He wanted us to interact in loving intimate relationship well.  The bible is full of stories where God is a character interacting with man.  This statement is, of course, biased.  There truly is no such thing as genuine objectivity, leading to a tentative conclusion that our attempts at reaching a clearly defined and exact law of the universe is not appropriate, nor really a primary goal God had intended for mankind.

Insipriational Source: