Science in Christian Perspective
Dialogue
What Is a Christian's Responsibility as a Scientist?
JOHN A. McINTYRE
Department of Physics
Texas A & M University College Station, Texas
RICHARD H. BUBE
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University Stanford, California
Critiques, Rebuttals, Kibitzers' Comments
STATEMENT of John A. Mcintyre
Dr. Mcintyre is Professor of Physics at Texas A & M University, past President of the ASA in 1973, and the author of a number of articles on science and Christian faith, including "is the Scientist for Hire?" in The Scientist and Ethical Decision, C. Hatfield, ed., intervarsity Press (1973).
The question under consideration is limited to the responsibility
that a Christian
assumes directly because he is a scientist. Many Christian responsibilities to
family, church and community are not discussed unless the scientific component
of the Christian's life is directly involved.
What Kind of Work?
Perhaps the first responsibility for the Christian as a scientist is
the selection
of the kind of work that he will do. Often there appears to be little
direct guidance
for making this selection. However, there are constraints that often limit the
range of possibilities. Such a constraint would be the condition of
the job market.
A Christian will view these constraints as indications by God
concerning the place
in which he should devote his professional life. For example, a
decade ago there
were many teaching and research positions in universities. Scientists
who accepted
these positions inevitably devoted most of their efforts to performing research
and maintaining the highest professional competence in their field. Today the
positions available often have more relevance to the problems of society and a
scientist might very well develop his administrative and social
capabilities instead.
As Christians we know that God will supply our every need as we adjust to the
situations in which we are placed.
Within these constraints, however, there is usually a range of possibilities. How does a Christian decide in a responsible way what type of work to do? I believe that the Scriptures give us definite guidance. As members of the body of Christ, we each have received different gifts that we are to use for the glory of our Lord. We should therefore select work that utilizes our gifts in an optimum way. We then face the question,
The Bible indicates that the Christian's responsibility is limited to his own acts.
"How do we best use our gifts?" Students often ask me this question and my answer has been that their gifts usually will be used most effectively when they are doing what they most like to do. We usually desire to do what we do well. Paul, for example, wrote about his calling, "For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" Some scientists like to teach, some enjoy most their time in the laboratory, while some prefer to associate with people in business relationships. A Christian scientist should determine which situation is most attractive to him and attempt to find employment which will then permit him to function most effectively.
Selecting an Employer
Having selected the type of work he should do, the Christian
scientist must next
select his employer. Except for the few cases where conscience
interferes (a pacifist
should not work for the Defense Department), all legitimate employment should
he considered to be appropriate. The selection should he based on the
opportunities
available for the exercise of the gifts of the scientist. Jesus, for example,
was a carpenter in a small town for ten years of his life. For
Protestants there
is no division between laity and clergy because of the type of employment; or
in evangelical terms, there is no division between those in
"full-time"
and "part-time" Christian service. Christian scientists, then, should
select their employment on the basis of professional opportunity. If Christians
follow this rule, they will all be using their gifts in the most
effective manner.
Professional opportunity should not, of course, be defined too
narrowly. The professional
rewards of training young Christians and watching them mature in a
Christian school
cannot be matched by the dollars received for a different kind of employment.
If one does not enjoy teaching, however, he should trust the Lord to
provide men
who do find professional fulfillment in this work and not feel a
personal obligation
to train the young.
Furthermore, if Christian scientists are employed in all types of work, they will
be distributed throughout society. Jesus must have had such a situation in mind
when he described Christians as the "salt of the earth."
Salt is effective
as a preservative only if it is distributed uniformly throughout the body it is
to protect. The evangelical Christian community has suffered terribly because
only certain employment was considered proper; the defense of the
faith has often
depended on former atheists such as C. S. Lewis who had no
inhibitions about being
a teacher in a secular university. While the number of outstanding evangelical
Christians in the sciences has been increasing during our generation,
the situation
is still desperate in the arts. It is essential that Christians not
withdraw from
secular society; we are to he in the world though not of the world.
Responsible for Employer's Acts?
In a sinful world it is inevitable that an employer's acts will
sometimes offend
the conscience of the employed Christian. How responsible is the Christian for
these acts? The Bible indicates that the Christian's responsibility is limited
to his own acts. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do, he
said, "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with
your wages." There is no indication here that they should leave
their positions
or even repent for their participation in the activities of the Roman
government.
Jesus paid taxes and thereby supported the sinful government of his
day; yet the
Bible asserts that he was without sin. Even the description of the
church as the
body of Christ indicates that each member of the body is responsible only for
itself. There is no way for the eye to be responsible for the foot although an
imperfectly operating eye can cause damage to the foot. It is clear, then, that
a Christian who is
part of an organization must perform his duties conscientiously but he is not
responsible for the acts of those over whom he has no authority.
A Christian, however, is responsible for his own acts. When ordered
to do an act,
the Christian must remind himself of Jesus' admonition, "Render,
therefore,
to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to Cod the things that are
Cod's,"
The legal canons recognize this limitation on loyalty to the employer when they
say that the attorney should not perform any act that is contrary to
his conscience.
If ordered to write a computer program for illegal purposes, the
Christian would
refuse to do so.
Christian Verbal Witness
Finally, one might ask about the Christian's responsibility to speak
of his Christian
faith during employment hours. The primary consideration is that the hours at
work belong to the employer. There are situations, however, when it
is appropriate
for the Christian to introduce the gospel as part of his professional duties.
When teaching science,, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the
limitations of the scientific method and the need for a Christian
faith. In fact
students often criticize those professors who refuse to reveal their
presuppositions
when they present the subject matter of their course.
Extra-Professional Responsibility
We now come to the responsibility of the Christian scientist outside
his profession.
In most respects his responsibilities differ little from those of any
other Christian.
Because of his scientific training, however, the Christian scientist
can minister
to the Christian community in a unique fashion. Through the education
of Christians
in scientific matters and by acting as an intermediary no scientific
issues between
the Christian community and the secular world, the Christian scientist can use
effectively both his professional training and his Christian commitment. Every
Christian scientist should be a member of an organization such as the American
Scientific Affiliation that performs just these functions.
The Christian should he sensitive to the needs of his own community
and to society
at large. Because of this sensitivity, the Christian particularly
must guard against
neglecting his professional duties as a scientist while working in
the community.
The activities of a professional scientist are of course not restricted to the
research laboratory. Advising the government, educating the public,
and even writing
articles such as this are all legitimate activities. The ethical considerations
arise if one neglects the duties for which he has been employed. If
the scientist
has been employed as a research scientist, he should devote the time necessary
to be a good research scientist.
Summary
In summary, the Christian scientist is responsible to use the gifts
that Cod has
given him, He is loyal to his employer and conscientious in
performing his duties.
While he is not responsible for the actions of his employer, he will attempt to
influence these actions for the common good. And, finally, he will
put his scientific
knowledge at the disposal of the Christian church and of society.
STATEMENT of Richard H. Bube
Dr. Bube is Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, past President of the ASA (1968), and the author of The Human Quest: A New Look at Science and Christian Faith, (Word 1971).
Being a scientist is a difficult calling for anyone today. Perhaps in
past years
it may have seemed to many that scientists could he simply
scientists, investigating
the marvels of the natural world with scarcely a thought for the
results of their
investigations, trusting to the "innate goodness of human
nature" (that
great and universal fallacy) to put the results to a humanitarian and
productive
use. There was a kind of Pollyannish optimism that the problems of the human
race could he rather immediately solved by the application of
scientific research
and technology. Once a few of the more serious material needs of the human race
could be removed, this same "innate goodness" would express itself in
appropriating the results of science for the good of all mankind. It
is difficult
to see how anyone can retain this misguided optimism today. Of course
Christians
have always had biblical reasons for rejecting it.
Who Dares to be a Scientist?
A realistic assessment of the world situation today suggests that it is only a
Christian who has the basic faith foundation adequate to be a
practicing scientist.
The Christian is well aware that every advance in knowledge with the
potentiality
for good has a potentiality for evil that is proportional to the
good; that while
men of good will are attempting to harness the potentiality for good,
others are
even more busily engaged in harnessing the potentiality for evil. If
every advance
of knowledge is capable of bringing as great evil as good, why not simply cease
the search? In an impersonal universe in which we happen to be in
existence simply
as the consequence of meaningless Chance, such a course of action
would certainly
seem the most reasonable. It is only in a universe in which God is sovereign,
that the individual dares to be a scientist, facing the needs of the
moment with
all the humane skills available in spite of overwhelming pessimism about man's
ability to resolve the problems of this world - sustained by the knowledge that
the Christian man or woman of science is called to be faithful, and
not necessarily
to be successful in all they attempt.
Producing Faithfully
The responsibility of the Christian scientist follows from this call
to he faithful.
The unique responsibility of the Christian scientist arises from the fact that
as scientist, he is a producer of knowledge. For this reason the scientist is
in a different position from other professionals such as lawyers or doctors, who
mediate the consequences of existing knowledge but do not produce it
themselves.
The lawyer administers the law on behalf of his client, perhaps even
without concern
for the guilt or innocence of his client, because he is acting as a servant of
society that sees the greatest equity in a system of law uniformly applied to
all men. The doctor administers medicine on behalf of his client,
without concern
for the mural status of that client, because he is acting as a
servant of a society
that sees the greatest equity in a system of medicine applied uniformly to all.
But the scientist has more difficult decisions to make.
What he does may affect the lives of future generations for years to come.
The scientist, as a producer of knowledge, cannot sit back and let others make
all the decisions about its investigation and use. Furthermore, his
responsibility
dues not begin only when the potentiality for good or evil has been
brought into
existence, but his responsibility begins back when the potentiality
is still only
an unrealized speculation. The scientist must feel immediately responsible for
the direction and goals of his work; he cannot abdicate and place his
responsibility
on the shoulders of others in authority over him, such as his supervisor, his
employer, his company board of directors, or his government. Any time that an
individual scientist devotes his talents in a direction that violates his basic
moral conscience, he has given up his choice position as a
responsible professional
in society, and has become instead a technical prostitute.
The difficulty of being responsible cannot be used as an argument against being as responsible as possible.
The Orders of Responsibility
The scientist has first of all the responsibility of deciding whether
to proceed
in a given direction and then how to proceed; both of these decisions
may involve
profound moral and practical issues quite incompatible with the
limited or profit-focused
motives of his employer. Secondly, once he has decided to proceed,
the scientist
takes on the responsibility to follow through with efforts to guide the use of
the new knowledge in a humanly beneficial way. Scientists resist
becoming politicians
and activists, but for many there may be no other choice. To attempt to evade
this responsibility through simplistic definitions of spheres of responsibility
has had enough past failure to discredit it completely.
The Christian scientist is responsible first of all to God, and then
to all other
humans presently living and destined to live in the future until the return of
Christ; only after these responsibilities are weighed, does his
immediate responsibility
as a paid employee by industry or government deserve his careful attention. The
first responsibility, of course, is to God, who calls him to service
not primarily
in the Christian witness he may share with colleagues or coworkers but in the
calling of being a practicing scientist; God's claim is upon the whole man and
every aspect of his being. The second responsibility is to other human beings;
this is not in competition with responsibility to God, for it is in
responsibility
to fellow human beings that God commonly calls us to live out our
responsibility
before Him.
The third responsibility to one's employer, in the light of the two
prior responsibilities,
may lead to heavy decisions indeed; it tears from the scientist all
the pragmatic
excuses by which he can rationalize participating in work designed by its very
nature to be harmful to his fellow man. It may force him to leave an employer
rather than fail his responsibility to God and man; it may even force
him to leave
the practice of science itself. It seeks to assure that the scientist will be
not only as responsible as his employer desires, but as responsible
as his relationship
with God and man demands. Here we have another application of the
familiar tension
between Acts 5:29, asserting the basic principle that men must obey God rather
than man, and Romans 13, asserting the basic principle that Christians should
submit as good citizens to the authority they find themselves under.
In the final
crisis, however, for the Christian it must always be a choice of
God's word over
man's word. The scientist truly owes much to his employer, but he owes more to
God.
No Simple Answers
It should not he supposed that simple answers are available for the responsible
living of a Christian scientist in today's world; the absence of such
simple answers
in an imperfect world cannot be taken, however, as a rationale for seeking no
answers. The fear of failure to be wholly responsible cannot be taken
as the basis
for failing to be responsible at all. Nor can it be supposed that
being responsible
always follows the same pattern; it may call one into greater
scientific devotion
in order that the full systems effects of potential developments may
be understood
before it is too late, or it may call one out of scientific work
itself in order
to function in guiding future research, development and technology.
It must be emphasized that the difficulty of being responsible cannot be used
as an argument against being as responsible as possible. The results of basic
scientific research in any field can be used for evil as well as good; but the
scientist who produces the knowledge has a responsibility to see that
it is used
for good
instead of evil to the best of his ability. Such difficult decisions
are not present
in most of applied science and engineering, however. Here the goal of
the research
is clearly chosen; a scientist cannot absolve himself for working on
an instrument
of destruction on the grounds that knowledge of techniques gained in this way
might be used for human preservation. Nor can a scientist working to
develop profitable
devices without regard to the effect on the environment or without
consideration
of the benefit of his work to those who are not rich and powerful,
absolve himself
by claiming that after all he is only being a trustworthy employee.
Summary
The responsibility of a Christian scientist is both a burden and a challenge;
both an everpresent uncertainty and restlessness of soul, and an
opportunity for
fulfillment of the human purpose. It demands that in some appropriate way each
scientist be responsible both for his own work arid for its consequences.
Bube's Critique of Mcintyre's Statement
One of the most striking absences in McIntyre's statement on the responsibility
of a Christian scientist is any discussion of the relationship
between the practicing
scientist and the consequences of his successful research and
development. Except
in indirect ways, McIntyre leaves untouched this central issue in
such a discussion
of responsibility.
Some of McIntyre's statements are not so much wrong as misleading if
interpreted
simply. For example, he suggests that the selection of an employer
should "be
based on the opportunities available for the exercise of the gifts of
the scientist."
Certainly this should be one of the considerations, but hardly the decisive one
in making ultimate decisions. Suppose a scientist has to make a choice between
a project in which his theoretical and experimental skills would be admirably
matched to making a Doomsday machine, and a project with a medical application
suitable for his talents, but not likely to offer quite as much in the way of
scientific development. Hopefully in such a case, McIntyre's criterion would be
overruled, and the scientist would weight his direct foreseeable contributions
to human welfare more heavily than the purely technical development
of his talents
without regard to consequences. This is not an unimportant issue. Many, if not
most, promising scientists have chosen employment on the basis of the
opportunities
afforded of developing their skills with scarcely a thought to the effects of
their possible success on the rest of the world. It seems to me
wholly consistent
with Christian goals to work to raise the social conscience of the scientist or
would-be scientist.
Another example of the need for care in interpreting Mcintyre's
statement relates
to his argument that Christian scientists should be in "all
types of work"
so that they can be effective as Christian salt. But surely there are
some types
of work from which a Christian must exclude himself: for example,
work in occupations
whose principal purpose most be judged sin. An opportunity for
employment in which
the principal goal was the development of instruments to kill human beings, or
the perfection of products harmful to consumers but profitable to producers, or
the investigation of techniques destined to be used to dehumanize men
and women,
must certainly all be avoided by Christians.
The fact that John the Baptist did not advise soldiers coming to him to leave
their positions can hardly be used as ultimate evidence that an
individual's participation
in an organization with immoral purposes is not a matter for his
Christian concern.
It has been on just such interpretations of Scripture that slavery
has been defended
- for otherwise "surely Jesus or Paul would have condemned
it." We must
recognize that the Christian Gospel works itself out in heightened
social awareness
of its full implications, and the absence of specific condemnations of social
practice in the Bible cannot always be taken as ultimately normative.
It is perhaps significant that Mcintyre rules out illegal activities
for the Christian,
but he does not explicitly make a similar statement for immoral
activities. Although
a Christian scientist will certainly not ignore the legality of an action, he
will find the domain of legal actions larger than the domain of moral actions.
To base Christian decisions on legality rather than on
A person's responsibility for group actions is commensurate with his authority and ability to change those actions.
a living relationship with the living God is to adopt legalism beyond
all justification.
In his argument that the church is an institution in which "each member of
the body is responsible only for itself," and that "the Christian's
responsibility is limited to his own acts," McIntyre appears to
be misinterpreting
"responsibility" to mean "guilt." The two are related but
they are not identical, To say that I do not directly bear the guilt of immoral
acts of someone else in an organization to which I belong is not the
same as saying
that I am not responsible for doing something about those acts. Paul's exercise
of Christian discipline in I Corinthians 5 is a call to members of
that congregation
to act responsibly with respect to the behavior of a member. In I Corinthians
12:26, he says, "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member
is honored, all rejoice together."
The relationship between individual and group responsibility is not
easily assessed
in detail, and depends of course on the specific group involved. To claim that
a man is responsible only for his own actions, and never for those of the group
in which he lives, or even for the consequences of his actions, is
far too broad
a claim to make. It would absolve the man who does not use a weapon
to kill, but
who makes the weapon available knowing that others will use it in
this way. (The
maker of the weapon should be responsible for what happens to it; if
he knowingly
passes the weapon along to men who are certain to use it wrongly,
then he is also
guilty.) It lays the foundation for a society in which each
individual continues
on his own way, prevented by blinders and tunnel-vision from
detecting the inhumanities
resulting from a group of individuals all concerned only with their
own immediate
moral purity. A far more Christian perspective is to recognize that a person's
responsibility for group actions is commensurate with his authority and ability
to change those actions. The responsibility of a first-century Christian under
the Roman Empire for the excesses of Rome is far less than that of a 20th
Century
Christian in the United States for the excesses of that government.
The responsibilities
of the individual for the actions of his government is much greater
in a functioning
democracy than it is in a totalitarian dictatorship. And yet, even
under the latter
condition, a Christian scientist in Hitler's Nazi Germany working on armaments
or gas cremation furnaces could not consider himself free of responsibility and
absolved from all guilt because he was only following orders or fulfilling the
terms of his employment. A lawyer might choose to defend Hitler in
order to demonstrate
that government by law is the best that human beings can devise. A doctor might
choose to heal Hitler because he had sworn to heal all persons alike. But are
there any grounds on which a scientist could make the perfectly legal choice of
developing rockets and bombs for Hitler and still remain free of the
responsibility
and the guilt of Hitler's future use of those weapons?
Mcintyre's Rebuttal to Bube's Critique
I agree with Bube on the issue on which we chiefly disagree, as stated in the
first paragraph of his critique. So let me begin by explaining why, in my view,
the responsibility of a scientist for the application of his discoveries
is greatly
restricted if not absent altogether. To be specific, I will use an example with
which I am familiar. Suppose a nuclear physicist works for the Atomic
Energy Commission.
How responsible is this physicist for the use of his discoveries?
There have been at least four areas of application that use phenomena
associated
with the atomic nucleus: weapons, power, medicine, and civil
engineering (explosives).
Because of its current interest, let us consider for discussion the
social implications
of nuclear power. Whether nuclear power is good or bad depends on issues such
as the following: the effectiveness of security measures for
preventing the theft
of nuclear material, the dangers of storing radioactive waste, the probability
of a serious nuclear plant accident, the hazards of air pollution by
coal-burning
power plants, the acceptability of strip mining, the importance of the United
States having an independent source of energy, and the wisdom of maintaining a
society using large amounts of energy. On issues such as these, the
nuclear physicist
has no special insight or contribution to make. The issues are concerned with
the values held by different parts of society, and the resolution of
these issues
should be carried out by the political processes of society. It is
improper, therefore,
for the nuclear physicist to claim a special hearing for his opinions because
he happens to he at one end of the complex technical and political
process which
takes the information developed by the physicist and transforms it
into electricity
in the home of the consumer.
The selection of nuclear physics also happens to apply to the example that Bube
gives in his critique concerning the choice of working on a Doomsday machine or
on a medical project. The phenomena of nuclear physics have been used for the
hydrogen bomb (the present equivalent of the Doomsday machine) and for nuclear
medicine (which is leading to impressive advances in the medical treatment of
many diseases). Since the knowledge he develops in the field of nuclear physics
will be used for both weapons and medicine, should a Christian scientist work
in the field of nuclear physics? Furthermore, when does a weapon
cease to be proper
(a club for a policeman) and become improper (a Doomsday machine)?
Are all nuclear
weapons improper? Again, the answers to these questions are hardly the special
province of the physicist. If society decides what the answers should
be, is the
physicist to refuse to participate because he has greater wisdom?
Here we come across a basic problem. In an organized society can each
professional
group decide for the rest of society what is right and what is wrong? We find
longshoremen refusing to unload ships from Russia when the decision
about trading
with Russia has been assigned by the American people to the State
Department and
not to the longshoremen. Should the nuclear physicists he the ones to
decide whether
the United States is to have a nuclear power program? Benjamin
Franklin had some
wise words to say about this issue as the issue applies to printers,
In an organized society can each professional group decide for the rest of society what is right and what is wrong?
Men have many opinions and printers print them as a part of their business. They are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantages of being beard by the public; and that when troth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter. Hence they cheerfully serve all contending writers that pay them well, without regarding to which side they are of the question in dispute . . . . If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sore it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.
Cannot the nuclear physicist, just as the printer, trust the American people,
through the political process, to arrive at a proper decision? Of
course the American
people make mistakes, but is it better to have these decisions made instead by
those who happen to be in strategic positions such as the
longshoremen, the nuclear
physicist, or the printers? Each of these groups sees the world from a limited
perspective and, if our society is to avoid the tunnelvision that
Bube rightfully
deplores, the final decisions on matters such as foreign policy, nuclear power
programs and censorship of the press must reside with representatives
of all the
people.
If then, the scientist has no special contribution to make to any of
the applications
of his scientific discoveries, he has the freedom to decide where he wishes to
direct his efforts outside his professional life. Often, because they already
have personal contacts with men dealing with applications of their
own scientific
work, nuclear physicists have become interested in the problems associated with
these applications. Thus, some nuclear physicists are experts in weapon systems
and disarmament problems, others have become concerned with the
questions of safety
associated with the nuclear power program, others have monitored the
development
of methods of using nuclear explosions for the extraction of oil from
rocks. Other
nuclear physicists, however, have contributed to discussions such as this one
about the responsibility of scientists, others have written about science and
religion, and others have tried to bridge the generation gap. My contention is
that the nuclear physicist working in these latter fields is acting
just as responsibly
as those working on weapons systems, nuclear power, and nuclear
explosives, which
fields happen to be applications of his scientific specialty.
I agree with Bube's statement, "To claim that a man is
responsible only for
his own actions, and never for those of the group in which he lives,
or even for
the consequences of his actions, is far too broad a claim to
make." Because
of my agreement with these remarks, I noted in my initial statement
that "except
for the few cases where conscience interferes (a pacifist should not work for
the Defense Department) all legitimate employment should be
considered appropriate."
I would therefore say that a scientist working for the Defense
Department is responsible
for the use of military weapons. However, is the professor who
teaches ROTC (military)
students in his classroom also responsible for the use of these weapons? And is
the scientist who does medical research for the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (HEW) also responsible? For after all, HEW is an arm of the
same federal
government that directs the activities of the Defense Department, so that the
medical scientist is also working for an employer, the federal government, that
uses the military weapons. Finally we get back to every taxpayer (pacifists and
all) who pays for the weapons. Is a pacifist, who opposes as best he
can the military
activities of his government, to be held responsible for those activities? We
have the example of Jesus who was sinless and therefore not responsible for the
actions of the Roman government whose actions he could not control.
The question
of responsibility is indeed a complex one.
Bube also raises the question of the proper action of a Christian
scientist under
Hitler. This question introduces the problem of the possibility of
revolt against
the government. Since the problem of the proper justification for revolution is
a difficult problem in its own
right, I do not wish to bring it into this discussion.
Finally, I would like to correct any impression I may have made that
a Christian's
actions should be based on purely legal concerns and not on moral factors. In
my Statement, I wished to introduce such moral considerations when I remarked
that (1) "a pacifist should not work for the Defense Department", (2)
"the Christian must rewind himself of Jesus' admonition,
'Render, therefore,
to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.'
The legal canons recognize this limitation on loyalty to the employer when they
say that the attorney should not perform any act that is contrary to
his conscience.",
and (3) "While he is not responsible for the actions of his employer, he
will attempt to influence these actions for the common good." I
agree completely
with Bube that "to base Christian decisions on legality rather than on a
living relationship with the living God is to adopt legalism beyond
all justification."
Mcintyre's Critique of Bube's Statement
There are many features of Bube's statement with which I am in agreement. His
first two paragraphs eloquently state the Christian's realistic but pessimistic
view of a world that does not acknowledge God. And the final two
paragraphs express
perhaps the most important point, that there are no easy answers to
the question
of responsibility.
However, I do not understand Bube's contention that "the unique
responsibility
of the Christian scientist arises from the fact that as a scientist,
he is a producer
of knowledge. In this way he is different from all other professionals, who are
users of knowledge but not producers of it."
It is difficult to see that the scientist plays any unique role.
Let us examine, however, the process of the production of knowledge.
In the production
of knowledge, there must first he the decision to support with funds the search
for knowledge; only then can the scientist begin to work. There is a definite
relationship between
the amount of funding for research and the effectiveness of
scientific research.
(If there is no such relationship, then the scientists have been misleading the
funding agencies of the federal government for a long lime.)
It is difficult to see in this process of knowledge-creation that the scientist
plays any unique role aside from the fact that he directs the spending of the
money (based on, perhaps, highly complex scientific considerations). Why, then,
is the scientist, who produces new knowledge on demand, a different
kind of producer
than the engineer who produces a new bridge on demand? Or different, for that
matter, than Verdi who composed Aida for the celebration of the opening of the
Suez Canal? Rather, it would appear that the scientist shares with
other creative
people the same responsibilities.
Bube's Rebuttal to Mcintyre's Critique
Knowledge is not salvation as the wisdom-religions of past and present claim,
but it is power. The user of knowledge has responsibility that it is
used properly.
The engineer is constrained by his responsibility to build a safe and
serviceable
bridge; it makes a difference whether the engineer uses existing knowledge to
build a bridge or a device to extract confessions from prisoners under torture.
The composer is constrained by his responsibility to create a
beautiful and challenging
work that will uplift man's spirit; it makes a difference whether the composer
uses existing knowledge to produce such a musical work or instead
writes an obscene
musical to degrade human beings. The Christian engineer will refuse
the "demand"
to build a torture device. The Christian composer will refuse the
"demand"
to compose an obscene and blasphemous work.
To think of science as "research on demand" reduces the professional
to the level of an unthinking technician.
Thus the scientist's position does not differ from that of the engineer because
the latter is free of responsibility for his work; rather both
scientist and engineer
share in the responsibility to pursue their respective tasks with the
consequences
in mind.
Now it is true that the scientist cannot carry out research without
funding, but
it is also true that new knowledge cannot be obtained without the
scientist. Both
the individuals who plan what funding will be available, and the
individuals who
plan what to do with that funding are uniquely responsible for the production
of new knowledge that may result. Since the scientist usually plays some role
in both areas (by refereeing proposals and serving on advisory
committees as well
as by participating in research) he is doubly responsible.
It is probably very difficult if not impossible to exercise such
proper responsibility
if science is thought of as "research on demand." But such a concept
reduces the professional scientist to the level of an unthinking technician. It
is the challenge for the creative Christian scientist to make the best possible
match between his abilities, the funding available, and the benefit
of the human
race. If he feels that such a match has become impossible, and that
he must work
in areas which he personally feels are necessarily detrimental to human beings,
then it is time for that Christian responsibly to drop out of science.
Kibitzers' Comments.
Paul K. Jewett
1. I have difficulty limiting the discussion of responsibility on the part of
a Christian who is a scientist to his role as scientist (McIntyre).
Responsibility
seems to me to be a quality of our lives as persons which can hardly
be isolated
in terms of some specific role; e.g., will a Christian who is a scientist take
a job that involves regular Sunday work? Here his responsibility as a scientist
overlaps his responsibility as a Christian and a churchmen, does it not?
When scientists have selected the type of work in which "they
are doing what
they most like to do" (McIntyre), how does one divide his time and energy
between this work which he enjoys as a scientist and his responsibility to his
family? These questions are raised simply to illustrate my point that
responsibility
is ours as persons in our several roles.
2. McIntyre seems to reason that (a) Scripture gives the scientist
definite guidance
as to the work he should do; (b) most people work most effectively doing what
they like to do; (e) having sought employment in terms of what is attractive to
him, the scientist has selected the type of work that he should do.
This reasoning
is hardly compelling. I just do not see much of the cross of
Christian discipleship
in it.
3. McIntyre makes what seems to me to be facile judgments from time
to time that
would warrant at least a footnote of support and elaboration. For example, he
says, "In evangelical terms, there is no division between those in 'full
time' and 'part time' Christian service." Are matters that
simple? Is there
no call to the ministry, no office of ministry? What is the meaning
of ordination?
Affirmations like this could stand a bit of qualification, it would seem, such
as "in my view," or "it seems to me," that there
is no division
between full time and part time Christian service.
4. McIntyre says, "The Bible indicates that the Christian's responsibility
is limited to his own acts." In my judgment, it does nothing of the kind.
On the contrary, it ties my responsibility as an individual in with the sin of
the whole race, going back to the first Adam. "By the one man's
disobedience
the many were made sinners" (Rom. 5:12 ff.).
5. I feel more comfortable with Bube's approach to the discussion. As for his
affirmation that "it is only the Christian who has the basic
faith foundation
adequate to be a practicing scientist," this seems a little much
to me. Would
it not be more tenable to say that the Christian has the most
adequate faith foundation to be a practicing scientist. After all, Einstein was hardly a
Christian but somehow
he managed rather well to practice science, did he not?*
*Note by Bube: I hope that the context shows that I am speaking not
about philosophical
grounding, but about the ambivalence of science. If there is no sovereign God,
we better not expose still greater possibilities for evil.
6. Does the scientist really have, as Bube suggests,
more difficult decisions to make" than the lawyer or doctor? Some of the
decisions the Supreme Court justices have had to make recently seem
rather difficult,
in fact, so much so that many people have had reservations about
former President
Nixon's candidates for that bench. As for doctors, are they not scientists, and
are not medical questions such as those related to abortion, euthanasia, etc.,
which face doctors some of the most difficult of all to resolve?
Paul K. Jewett School of Theology Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, California
91101
Charles Hatfield
My agreement with both Bube and McIntyre is deep and wide; my
disagreements might
well be reconciled across coffee cups, were that possible. My contribution, for
lack of space, is purposely terse. Bube says that "it is only a Christian
who has the basic faith foundation adequate to be a practicing scientist".
What does this mean? Had he said "practicing Christian scientist", we
could hardly disagree, for it is now a tautology, assuming the
foundation is Christianity
itself. Perhaps he means that the scientist must assume in his chosen field a
regularity sufficient to provide the clues for discovery of so-called laws of
science. But this kind of presupposition (or faith) is the same for
all scientists,
Christian and non-Christian. Thus the nonChristian scientist would
have the necessary faithfoundation,° But, more seriously, Bube has the Christian
scientist responsible
not only to God as ultimate Wisdom and Power, but "to all other
humans presently
living and destined to live in the future until the return of
Christ". What
a heavy load, if that were true! One wants to ask, does this make it worse than
being responsible to God only? And how intense is the responsibility? I should
think this conviction might quickly empty the ranks of scientists of
the Christians
among them, for they would live under the threat of some evil
application of their
contributions to science. I believe, rather, (with McIntyre) that the
Bible teaches
the principle of limited responsibility ("to his own acts"). It seems
to he partly a matter of God's design, the "Maker's
instructions": separation
of the personal from the impersonal, the respondable from the un-respondable.
While a man's knowledge is not the only parameter in ethical decision, it does
qualify his act: "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to
do it, for
him it is sin." (Jas. 4:17) Newton, I'm told, suppressed certain
scientific
knowledge he was virtually sure would be put to evil use. But alas,
the calculus
which he (and independently Leibniz) invented, has been used to guide
many a bomb
to its human target. And, with
thousands of others, I have taught many students their calculus. Must
I lie awake
nights wondering whether any of these will use it for wicked purposes?
I believe that God does not load the scientist, or anyone else, with
responsibility
for what his superiors, including his country's officials, develop
from the scientific
knowledge he has discovered-except, of course, those superiors and
officials for
their decisions. If we believe in police action (and I do) to
restrain the lawless,
then we can hardly oppose manufacture of efficient weapons. The root of limited
responsibility, it seems to me, lies in the fact that the Biblical
ethic reflects
the character and will of God. "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God
am holy" (Lev. 19:2). And Jesus repeats this command. But the human race
is so depraved that "none is righteous, no, not one"; so
the fulfillment
of the demands of the Biblical ethic is impossible without outside
help. As Paul
wrote "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it
does not submit
to God's law, indeed it cannot" (Rom. 8:7) There is thus no area free from
the necessity of God's redemptive grace.
McIntyre says that "if ordered to write a computer program for
illegal purposes,
the Christian would refuse to do so." In most cases I could
think of, I would
agree. But in all cases? To agree to this seems to set legality above morality,
which I doubt McIntyre wants. The duality of Caesar's things and
God's admitted,
the only question is how to distinguish one from the other. The mother of Moses
disobeyed the law of the land in preserving him; Moses himself later
opposed Pharaoh
who was the law of the land; Daniel disobeyed his ruler by continuing
his worship;
and the disciples did similarly with their preaching the gospel. The last-named
gave the eternal principle for all such cases: "We ought to obey
God rather
than man". Here I must agree with Bube that morality supereedes legality
(and I believe McIntyre holds it, too). It is well to keep the
difference in focus.
Each supplements the other, each reinforces the other's authority. As J. N. D.
Anderson puts it,
The demands of morality may be said to be maximal, while the requirements of the law most he confined to what is, by comparison, minimal. Morality, for example, enjoins us to love our neighbour as ourselves; but law most content itself with trying to prevent any such speech or action as injures our neighbour's legitimate interests. Again, morality . . . concerns itself not only with what can be seen and judged by men, but also the thoughts, motives and feelings which no-one except God can know or evaluate.
One final nose-tweak: both Bube and McIntyre apparently believe that research
can he done only from (sizable?) funding. It's just as well that some
scientists
didn't know this, for it might have curtailed their discoveries. But
we all know
that "big" science is not necessarily good, nor
"little" bad.
There are ways of getting some research done, when there is no one to pick up
the tab. (George Washington Carver, come back to teach us how you did so much
with so little! And Banting and Best, show us your little lab under
the stairway
where, although poor in funds, yet rich in ideas and energy and determination,
you finally gave us insulin, boon to all diabetics!)
Charles Hatfield
Department of Mathematics University of Missouri Rolla, Missouri
Bernard Ramm
My reaction to this Dialogue is that there are
larger issues to be decided first. For example, Daedalus
in a recent issue published two huge volumes on the future of higher education
in America, which directly impinges on all Christian career professors in our
universities and scientists too. The most obvious conclusion of those
many articles
is that the career of a university professor is no longer the
paradigm of security.
As universities cut hack, they cut back in the science department,
and they will
cut back Christian professors too! Young people are being counseled today to be
adept in three or four skills to keep themselves viable on the job market. If
a university career is no longer the paradigm of vocational security, it means
Christians interested in science must take account of the situation
as it is now.
Perhaps in these days Paul would have added to tent making, being a carpenter
and a short order cook! With the complications of our society, Christians must
think of God's calling in the light of the transitions that
university education
and the job market are now going through.
A second impression of a larger issue is that of the nature of a
university. During
the sixties the activists claimed that the universities should be
agents of social
change. One cannot speak of social change in a university without a theory or
theology of social change. I have evangelical friends who are in
accord with the
thought of the sixties and still want the universities to be such
agents of social
change. Then there is the concept of the university which looks upon
it as a scholars'
paradise, isolated from political and economic pressures so pure research can
he followed without external pressure. Social change in that kind of situation
is much different from the first instance cited. In short whatever we think is
the kind of social change that a scientist should help along, will be
determined
by the kind of university we think is the ideal university.
Thirdly I think Bube has put his finger on the very sensitive issue
of the nature
of modern science.
We can now go down roads, roads by which we cannot come back. The use
of radioactive
materials may create conditions we cannot ever correct in many life
times. Genetic
engineering can go far enough that reversibility is not possible. The ethical
responsibility at this juncture is crushing. We have a good idea of
the destructive
forces in radioactive material but we may need it as part of the
solution to the
energy shortage. Or to remedy one genetic defect that seems so deleterious may
create something even worse which
will appear two or three generations later. At this point to say, "Let us
pray," is not a trite religious cliche' but mandatory for the
awesome possibilities
we are dealing with.
The fourth consideration is the matter of responsibility both men
discussed. Nazi
Germany and American Watergate showed how good men in obedience to
the wrong person
have no excuse for the evil deeds they do, no matter how much they might have
believed in the justice of their cause.
But responsibility is not pinpointed. It vectors in on the scientist
because whatever
has been prepared up to this point he must now execute. We can name a scientist
and say that he did this inhuman thing. But we know responsibility is
a never-ending
web. And this is true of Christians and Christians as scientists. I think the
man who is a Christian and a scientist must understand the web of
responsibility
in such a setting. This means that he may have to go back in this web
to a president,
a senator, a governor and say that the buck not only stops here, its
starts here.
Only as they see the web of responsibility can Christian scientists
express their
own responsibility in the way it counts, in the way it is fair and in the way
it cuts off the evil act at its initiation.
Bernard Ramm
Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151