A Pre-Scientific People? Refuting the Idea that People in New Testament Times Were Pre-Scientific Ignoramuses

By John Feakes

One favourite atheist argument against the historical reliability of the New Testament is that people living in Bible times were unscientific in their thinking. This unfortunate deficiency made them extremely gullible and apt to believe all sorts of crazy, unsubstantiated stories. Things like miracles, for instance, were believed by these poor, uneducated and unscientific ignoramuses simply because they lacked the scientific understanding that we in the 21-century take quite for granted. Living in a scientific age as we do, we understand that miracles are violations of scientific law, which of course is quite impossible.  So goes the argument.

At first blush the argument seems to have some force behind it. After all, recent technological advancements in almost every area are beyond impressive. They are truly staggering. The scientific method for discovering truth as it exists in nature coupled with human imagination and ingenuity can and has produced technological wonders that boggle the mind and fuel further discoveries. A cursory look at how people in New Testament times lived (their level of technology, and the superstitions that they embraced, for instance) seems to gather support for the atheists’ argument. Under closer inspection however, we find the opposite to be the case. That is, not only were people in New Testament times thinking scientifically, but they had a more consistent reason for doing so than today’s atheist.

Necessary Assumptions

Before one can launch off into any scientific investigation, one must first assume several things that are quite beyond proof. They are, for they atheist at least, blind leaps of faith. These assumptions are as follows:

1. Sense data are generally reliable. This assumption, like the others that follow, flows from a belief in a beneficent, Creator God. On this view, God endowed His intelligent creatures with faculties designed for the express purpose of apprehending the truth about the external world. On atheism, the human animal was shaped for merely for fitness. That is, that certain stimuli would elicit certain adaptive behaviours. On this view, it is not vital that humans perceive the world accurately. What’s important is that our bodies respond to what appears to be the case in a way that makes survival and reproduction more probable.

2. People have generally true beliefs. Beliefs, even given atheism, seem to have more than one class of properties. They would have chemical properties of course, because on atheism they really are nothing more than some kind of long-standing neural events. But beliefs also seem to have content. That is, beliefs are either true or false. They correspond to reality or they do not. It is this content-bearing property that is so mysterious. The problem is not that we don’t know how the brain produces beliefs; rather, the problem is we don’t understand how it could. Beliefs seem to be immaterial productions of immaterial minds – items which are seemingly impossible on atheism. Furthermore, it is difficult to maintain this second assumption given atheism when we consider that the proposed links between belief and adaptive behaviour cannot be shown to conserve true beliefs. For instance, one can imagine all sorts of false beliefs that would lead to a specific, adaptive behaviour in any given situation. In the end, given atheistic assumptions, we must conclude that humans would generally not have true beliefs (including the belief that God does not exist), or that the probability of humans having generally true beliefs is inscrutable.¹ Nevertheless, here we are, under the impression that humans generally have true beliefs. Once again, the situation is explicable on Christian theism, which teaches that God created people with truth-apprehending faculties.

3. From nothing, nothing comes (causation). Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method, stated that true knowledge is the knowledge of causes.² To advance any way scientifically is to first accept our most basic, metaphysical intuition, namely, that things that begin to exist have causes. It is this metaphysical commitment that drives the scientific process. In fact, the assumption of causation seems absolutely prerequisite to rational thought of any kind. Recognizing the apparent absurdity that being could come from non-being, the theist is consistent in his thought when he posits God as the Ultimate Cause of our finite universe. The atheist on the other hand, rides the principle of causation all the way back in his thoughts to the earliest moment of the universe, but disembarks at the singularity which marks the universe’s origin. Atheists who believe in an absolute beginning of the universe are forced to either admit that an Eternal Being caused the universe or that the universe sprung, uncaused, from absolutely nothing. The choice lie between either being consistent with our commitment to causation, or accepting the seemingly absurd notion that being can come from non-being.³

4. There is general uniformity in natural processes. On atheism, the universe sprung into existence, uncaused out of absolutely nothing. Furthermore, it did so for absolutely no reason. There is no Rationality behind any of it. As physics professor Roger S. Jones stated,

“The whole incredible big bang story with its climatic human ending is merely the result of physical and chemical processes that are completely random, accidental and meaningless.”⁴

The problem is, in a universe like that literally everything and anything could possibly happen. The force of gravity might change tomorrow, or suddenly all the air in the room you’re sitting in might gather in one corner causing your quick suffocation.  Of course these possibilities seem so remote as to be regarded as absurd. But why, on atheism, do we have this attitude? What makes them remote and absurd? The Christian understands from the Bible that God created the universe in such a way as to expect a general uniformity to natural process.⁵ With this assumption in place, a person can make careful observations today and expect similar results tomorrow. We can therefore reason inductively, which forms the framework for scientific reasoning. That is to say, we can carefully observe specific events from which we may draw general conclusions. Again, on atheism, it is difficult to understand the reason for assuming uniformity in natural process in a random, accidental, and meaningless universe! It is the Christian theist therefore – not the atheist - which has rational justification for the scientific endeavour’s prerequisite assumptions.⁶

Scientific Thinking in the New Testament

Clearly then, it is theism – not atheism - which provides a rational foundation for scientific thought. In fact, it will be shown that the common people in Jesus’ time, operating under theistic assumptions, were indeed thinking inductively and had therefore arrived at some very scientific conclusions. A cursory reading of the New Testament furnishes the following examples:

1. Conception: In Matthew 1:18-19 we read that,

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.”

Joseph was familiar with the fact that the births of millions of people were caused, without exception as far he knew, by the special union of man and woman. When he discovered that Mary was pregnant he assumed she had been with another man. Why? Because he was reasoning inductively, that is, scientifically. Her word would not have been enough to convince him otherwise. In fact, the text tells us that it took a supernatural angelic visitation to convince him. The point is, Joseph was not some gullible ignoramus who thought that things like conception could “just happen.”

2. New cloth: In Matthew 9:16 Jesus states that,

“No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.”

The idea here is that new, that is, unshrunk cloth, makes a poor patch because when it does shrink, it will cause even greater damage to the garment.  Notice Jesus’ words regarding the scope of this practise. In English His words are translated in the KJV as “no man.” The Greek however is “oudeis” which means “not one.” The text is clear that nobody (man or woman) was in the habit of using unshrunk material as a patch on an old garment. Why? The answer is that people of that time were thinking inductively. They reasoned from countless instances of patches shrinking and wrecking garments to the general conclusion that unshrunk pieces of fabric make poor patching material.

3. New wine and wineskins: Similar to the passage noted above, Jesus states in Matthew 9:17,

“Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”

The reasoning is the same. On countless occasions new wine had been put into wineskins that had already been stretched through use. As the wine fermented and expanded the old skins were forced beyond capacity and burst. That happened enough times that the people began to catch on. New wine had better go into skins that can be stretched, that is, new skins. Again, the text makes it clear that this notion was widespread in Jesus’ time, demonstrating clearly inductive reasoning.

4. Specific fruit/specific trees. In Luke 6:44, the Lord states,

“For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.”

After many years of observation, ancient people understood that things which reproduce bring forth offspring of the same kind. In this case, their botanical studies led them to conclude that certain plants could be expected to bring forth certain specific fruits. Ironically, it is the modern “scientifically” minded evolutionist who denies what his eyes obviously reveal to him. Setting aside the inductive evidence, he instead prefers to endorse a worldview where, if one waits long enough, things that reproduce will ultimately bring forth creatures of a different kind.

5. The colour of the sky: In Matthew 16:2-3, the Lord rebukes the religious leaders of His day for failing to recognize what God was doing in their midst. Jesus said to them,

“When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?”

Again, Jesus was not saying something foreign or strange to these people. They had been observing atmospheric conditions for centuries and had become apt at predicting upcoming weather patterns. This early meteorological endeavour clearly demonstrates widespread inductive, and hence, scientific, reasoning in the first century.

6. West clouds mean showers: Jesus further stated in Luke 12:54,

“When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.”

This passage provides us with a second example of early attempts at meteorology in the first century. The point is largely self explanatory. For centuries people noted that clouds arising in the west were followed by showers. Reasoning inductively, the people in Christ’s time assumed the same would be true in the future.

7. Wind and heat: In Luke 12:55-56, Jesus tells His listeners,

“...when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?”

Jesus’ words would have absolutely no force if this practise was not indeed in place and widespread. Again, folks had observed that winds coming from the south were followed by heat in the past, and so assuming a general uniformity to natural process, predicted that same would be true in the future. This marks the third example of how ancient man was not only thinking inductively about natural processes, but was able to make accurate meteorological predictions. Contrary to the skeptic's claims about people being gullible, overly superstitious and unscientific, a careful analysis of the text clearly reveals otherwise.

8. Branches indicate summer: In Mark 13, Jesus describes the events which will precede His triumphant return to planet earth in glory. He enjoins those that hear His words to pay attention to those things that are occurring on the earth. When certain specific events begin to unfold, we are to expect His soon return. The Lord states,

“Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:”(Mark 13:28)

The parable would be positively meaningless had the people of Christ’s time not been making certain uniformatarian assumptions about natural processes. In this case, folks had observed for generations that trees sprouting new leaves meant that summer was around the corner. Thinking inductively, folks predicted the same would be the case in the future. Such forecasting is in accord with sensible, practical and scientifically minded people, not gullible ignoramuses.

9. Fishing all night: In Luke 5 we read of a remarkable miracle performed by the Lord. Aboard the apostle Peter’s fishing vessel the Lord commanded him,

“... ‘Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.’ And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: (Luke 5:4-9)

The account recorded by Luke is very instructive. Notice first Peter’s practise of fishing at night. Why was this? Obviously fishermen at that time and place learned from experience that fishing at night was more fruitful that during the day. Thinking inductively, Peter and his partners made a practise of fishing at night, assuming a general uniformity not only to natural processes, but to animal behaviour as well. On this particular occasion, Peter’s expectations had not been fulfilled. That is, no fish had been caught that the previous night. Nevertheless, Peter did not throw in the towel and abandon his commitment to his uniformitarian beliefs. In fact, so committed was he to inductive reasoning that he all but disobeyed the Lord’s command. Notice that Jesus instructed Peter to let down his nets – plural. After letting Jesus know that no fish had been caught even though efforts had been made all night, Peter reluctantly let down a single net. The point ought not to be missed. The fishermen understood that, assuming consistent animal behaviour, the best time to fish was at night. If no fish could be caught then, then fishing during the day in that area was pretty much a waste of time. In a token show of obedience Peter let down a single net which of course became stretched to capacity with fish. Notice Peter’s response. He did not say, ‘Well that’s just how things go in a completely unpredictable universe where God can do whatever He wants on a whim.’ No, Peter fell down before the Lord because He had so upset the natural order of things.

10. Born blind: John chapter 9 contains the amazing account of how the Lord miraculously gave sight (and perception!) to a man who had been born blind. It is the recorded response of those who were confronted with this healed man that draws our attention. The text tells us that,

“The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, ‘Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him:’ but he said, I am he.  (John 9:8-9)

A little later we read,

“But the Jews [in context, the Pharisees] did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, ‘Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?’ His parents answered them and said, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.’”  (John 9:18-21)

Both the religious elite and the common people (even the blind man’s neighbours) had trouble believing that a miracle had taken place. Their uniformatarian assumptions all but precluded that a man born blind could have his sight granted him. In fact the text explicitly says so. In verse 32 the healed man flatly states to the Pharisees,

“Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.”

Notice that the uniformatarians in the account were all theists. Their theism did not cause them to shrug off the miracle with ‘Oh well, I guess God decided to intrude into His creation once again and do something unexpected.’ On the contrary, it was the biblical theist’s commitment to the God revelled in Scripture that elicited uniformatarian assumptions in the first place. In this case, it was uniformatarianism stretched to unreasonable proportions that produced skepticism regarding an alleged miracle. Notice also the actions taken by the Pharisees in the account. Rather than simply deny the miracle outright (as most uniformatarians since Lyell have felt apt to do), they chose rather to interview those closest to the subject. Surely this marks a superior, more scientific approach.

11. Crucifixion kills but takes time: Crucifixion is possibly the most shameful and painful form of execution devised by man. The unnatural posture of hanging from the arms makes breathing extremely difficult. In time the victim grows exhausted and breathing becomes impossible. Death follows shortly thereafter. The Gospels tell us that Jesus lasted six hours on His cross before he died. We read in Mark’s Gospel that,

“Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.”  (Mark 15:43-45)

The Romans had crucified thousands of people. They observed that it normally took many hours, even days for a victim to finally die. This is why Pilate marvelled that Jesus was already dead. Pilate was thinking inductively. Victims in the past died after many hours or even days, therefore, concluded Pilate, this man also should have lasted more than six hours. The other Gospels explain the situation to us. The Jews did not want the body of Jesus (or the malefactors crucified with Him) to still be hanging on their crosses after sundown and into the Sabbath Day. To appease the religious Jews, the legs of those crucified with Jesus were broken. This prevented their pushing themselves up in order to draw a breath. With their legs broken, death was certain within a matter of minutes. In Jesus’ case, the beatings and scourging He endured in addition to the crucifixion itself was enough to do the job. We read in the Gospel of John that when the soldiers found Jesus dead already, they pierced His side with a spear, which of course would have ensured a quick death.

Notice that in Mark’s Gospel, even though Pilate marvelled that Jesus was already dead, he became convinced of the fact after he consulted with the executioner. Again, Pilate was thinking inductively. Since executioners have correctly pronounced thousands of victims dead in the past it was therefore reasonable to assume that the executioner in this case had correctly pronounced Jesus dead as well.

12. Dead bodies decay: In the eleventh chapter of John’s Gospel we read of the death of Lazarus and the strange request Jesus made of his family and friends at the tomb. Verse 39 reads,

“Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.”

Once again, we see that people living in that time were not only capable of pronouncing a person dead accurately, but were in the habit of extrapolating what they knew to be true about past events into the future. In this case, it was well-known that certain features of a person’s body could be relied upon as reliable indicators that death had occurred. Furthermore, it was also understood from countless “experiments” that the corpses of animals and humans began an irreversible decay process within days of dying. Mary’s response to the Lord’s request was as reasonable back then as it would be in our own scientifically-minded culture.

Conclusions

The oft repeated claim that Christianity’s success was due to the fact that people in the first century were gullible, unscientific buffoons, fails miserably in light of the evidence. Not only were the people in Christ’s time reasoning inductively, that is, scientifically about natural processes, but ironically, it was their theistic assumptions that gave them rational justification for doing so.

Notes and References

1. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga was the first (as far as I’m aware) to point this out. This provides an effective defeater to any belief the atheist may have – including the belief that atheistic evolution is true!

2. Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1960 ed., p. 121

3. Scientists such as Lawrence Krauss et al often confuse this issue by stating that something can indeed come from nothing. Their case hinges on the fact that virtual particles are produced from what is routinely called the vacuum of space. The terminology is misleading however. The vacuum of space is actually a seething sea of energy and activity (see, New Scientist, 2 December, 1989, p.14; 25 February, 1995, p.30.) Astronomer Barry Setterfield has much information regarding the origin and nature of the vacuum on his website, www.setterfield.org

4. Roger S. Jones (Associate Prof. Of Physics, Universty of Minn.), “Physics for the Rest of Us”, Contemporary Books, Chicago 1992, p. 131

5. Genesis 8:22 virtually guarantees general uniformity to natural processes: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

6.  This is congruent with the fact that the founder of nearly every major branch of science had theistic presuppositions.