Science in Christian Perspective
Materialism and Modern Man
RUSSELL L. MIXTER
Department of Biology Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois
From: JASA 22 (December 1970): 132-135.
Is man just interacting chemicals? If a scientist says he is, he says
it because
of his belief that only what science can see, feel, hear, and analyze is real,
Douglas Spanner said that a scientist cannot know that he has the single source
of a knowledge of reality: if he believes this, his source of belief
is not from
his scientific methods, and so contradicts itself.1 Science cannot
know that science
knows everything.
David Dye
In commenting on the nature of physical reality,
David L. Dye in his book, Faith and the Physical
World2, writes, "atheism, or any religious view, is not
scientific, nor necessarily
antiscientific, but rather ascientific". He emphasizes that
"the strongest
claim that science may make is that its descriptions account for all known data
consistently.3 It cannot comment on whether a soul exists because a soul is
not observable by scientific apparatus. "If we deny real
existence of nonobservables,
that is, if we assume naturalism or atheism, we can have no implicit assurance
that logic is applicable to reality."4 Logic is based on the
assumption that
there is uniformity and consistency in human minds and the world they observe.
So he insists that any particular view of reality is based on one's preference
in interpreting data. "What happens in practice is that we select the data
or interpretation of data that best fits the meaning we want reality to have.
Then some of us have the temerity to assert that one or another world view is
'scientific' or 'proved'. It is clearly seen that such an argument is circular.
One's view may be modified, developed, or rationalized, but insofar
as it is not
physical but metaphysical it is based on unprovable (although
possibly consistent)
presuppositions. "5
Everyone realizes how well science has explained the observable
world. From distant
stars to some of the intricacies of mental activity, experimental methods have
revealed the processes involved in many phenomena. We can explain
where the impulse
starts which can be detected traveling over particular pathways to
definite muscle
fibers. The chemistry of contraction of muscle fibers is fairly well
known. Feelings
can be initiated by drugs. John Brobeck, Professor of Physiology at
the University
of Pensylvania, stated, "These range all the way from what might he called
super-reactivity, through more conventional states regarded as normal, and on
through sedation to deep stupor, with elation, well-being,
indifference, dependence,
and depression or independence, defiance
or aggression to be had almost for the asking."6 Undoubtedly the
many expressions
of the mind are materially based. Yet it is difficult to imagine that unselfish
love, worship, and delight in beauty result from unguided
combinations of complicated
chemicals.
There is another urge that is characteristic of mankind, man's need
for extra-scientific
meaning, as phrased by Dye.7 He notes that Augustine mentioned this need in his
often quoted classic "we are restless until we find our rest in God."
And recently Paul Tillich has "described the tendency of the
scientific age
to substitute means for ends, to reduce man's status from subject to
object."
Science has explained the observable world but has not given us guiding moral
principles by which we can use the means it gives us for controlling nature for
the benefit of mankind. These principles must be derived from the conscience of
modern man as it is influenced by the Biblical imperative of love
used in wisdom
and justice.
It has seemed to me unreasonable that man, with his imagination and ability to state abstract ideas about his past and future, should spend his mental energy in trying to show that he is just a mass of interacting chemicals.
Michael Polanyi
"Life transcends physics and chemistry" is the thesis of
Michael Polanyi
who has distinguished himself in both physical and social sciences. Two of his
recent writings' give the basis of his belief which is summarized in
the following
paragraphs.
Instead of using the argument that there are some aspects of living organisms
that are not machine-like and therefore are unexplainable by scientific laws,
Polanyi argues that the more machine-like a living being is found to
he, the more
it needs to be explained by the controls that were exerted upon it during its
formation. "The essence of a machine is to serve a purpose acknowledged by
its designer." Much as a dean influences a department chairman who passes
on suggestions to his faculty, so living things work on the
principles of hierarchies.
For example, responsible choice controls intelligence which produces patterns
of behavior influencing patterns carried out by muscular actions,
whose function
depends on the vegetative activities of respiration and circulation. "The
material of the machine is subject
to the laws of physics and chemistry, while the shape and consequent working of
the machine are controlled by its structural and operational principles."
Machines are made by men, but chemicals could exist even if men were
eliminated.
This would also be true of DNA which has a molecular pattern of four
bases (A,T,G,C,
the initials of complex chemicals) arranged in pairs in a long
series. This series
varies throughout its length and the variations determine what protein will be
produced to influence development in an embryo or the heredity of a succeeding
generation. The nature of DNA is not determined by the necessary
activity of physical
and chemical processes but DNA passes on information as a machine designed by
engineering principles. Life controls DNA, not DNA controls life.
"DNA evokes
the ontogenesis of higher levels; rather than determining those levels."
Just as a machine was designed, so DNA had to be produced by
controlling principles.
A description of a watch in physical and chemical terms, says
Polanyi, would not
tell you what a watch is. The term "watch" has to be
understood in terms
of its structure of having hands whose purpose is to "tell" time. Of
course, you and I tell time, not the watch, but by knowing what a watch is for,
we can let its physical parts he interpreted into a sensible thought
of the hour
and minute of the day. "A physical-chemical topography of my watch might
make it possible, at least in principle, to indentify this particular watch as
an object. But it would fail to identify it as a watch, for it is incapable of
defining a class of watches, as needed for assigning the watch to
that class."
Some neurophysiologists would explain the ability of the mind to
memorize as the
result of events being recorded in the RNA molecule. This may be true: the RNA
is a chemical akin to DNA and it is affected by conditions outside itself. It
is like the tape in a tape recorder which depends on the "pattern of the
impacts in which the message was embodied." Polanyi calls the determiners
of processes and structures the "boundary controls" and
these transcend
physics and chemistry by being profoundly informative interventions.
The structure
"serves as a boundary condition harnessing the physical-chemical processes
by which its organs perform their functions."
In dealing with the relation of mind to body his conclusion is "the mind
harnesses neurophysiological mechanisms and is not determined by them." He
sees a parallel with the hierarchies of the body in that the mind
also has principles
of responsibility transcending its appetitive and intellectual workings and as
one recognizes this he can live on the highest level.
Frank T. Rhodes
A thorough analysis of the relationship of materialism to spiritual realities
is found in the symposium edited by D. M. MacKay titled Christianity
in a Mechanistic Unicerse.9 The summary of his work that follows will enable you to evaluate the
nature of man effectively.
Frank H. T. Rhodes discusses the subject as follows. Some observers felt that
the mechanistic interpretation of nature either weakened the traditional basis
of Christian belief or made the Christian faith either untenable or
superfluous.
By scientific methods,
using observation and experiment, the new age dispensed with
tradition and authority.
"With the growth of the scientific method there developed,
however, the inevitable
and necessary attempt to interpret nature as a single, integrated and
therefore,
within these limits, self-explanatory and self-sufficient system."
Science arose in Western Europe in its Christian civilization which insisted on
the rationality of God, as A. N. Whitehead has commented. Science
therefore depends
on Christian theology as seen in the presuppositions of modern science, which
are "belief in an orderly, regular, rational universe, a belief that this
orderliness is intelligable to the modern sicentist, a belief in the
reliability
of human reason, and a belief in a broad principle of
causality." These assumptions
were made by the pioneers in science because of their belief in a
"personal,
rational, and dependable God."
To be sure science also had its effect upon Christianity. As
illustrations, Rhodes
mentions the belief in "the value of social, medical and
material progress,
and its concepts of the nature and apprehension of truth."
Actually the reason the popular mind associated modern science with atheism or
agnosticism was that science was popularized and 'explained' by
non-theistic writers
such as Fontenelle and his descendants. The scientists themselves in many cases
were devout Protestants and Catholics. The mechanistic view is popular because
most of the questions we ask are the ones that "are asked in and
demand answers
in mechanistic and often quantitative terms."
A scientist has made progress by "conscious elimination from
scientific argument
of questions of final cause and purpose." He selects the aspects
of reality
he wishes to investigate but he "is never in the position to
claim that those
which he consciously selects are the only ones which exist or that
they are ultimately
more relevant or important or real than the rest. He repeats Douglas Spanner's
idea by writing, "Science by its conscious abstraction, can never claim to
be the only method of apprehending reality." Science only exists because
there are people. We should not limit the fields science investigates
for it can
predict other observations and events besides those already observed.
Even though
mechanism is found everywhere, "it is everywhere the servant of purpose.
The two conceptions are not alternative but complementary" as Prof. John
Baillie has written. God is not to he used to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
Rather nature in all its variety testifies to the activity and nature
of its Creator.
Rhodes continues by treating the limitations of science. One is that
it is inadequate
to treat the whole range of phenomena. To describe light, science has
to use the
complementary views that light sometimes acts like corpuscles and at
other times
like waves. "Both are necessary to do justice to our present experience of
light." So matter and mind debates would bring out the need to
look at reality
as both matter and mind which become complementary principles. I like
especially
his illustration, "If, for me, the love between man and woman or
parent and
child is adequately and fully described only in terms of
physiological and psychological
mechanisms, then, as any lover or parent knows, I have never experienced that
love, only observed it. I have never participated in it, only
recorded it."
The conclusion of this first essay is that just as we cannot know our next door
neighbor by mere observation and analysis but must "participate
in the encounter
as a person" so to know God one must "participate as a
person in whatever
encounters there may be with him."
Donald M. MacKay
The second essay is by Donald M. MacKay, the editor, on Man as a Mechanism. He
mentions that "there is a continual two-way connection between what we can
say about people's subjective experience (of sights, sounds, itches, pains) and
what we can say about electro-chemical activity in their brains." So man
is a mental-bodily unity. It is misleading and dangerous to discuss
the relation
between mental activity and the corresponding brain activity as one
of cause and
effect, "It is a relation of necessity, but not a relation of scientific
causality." "We have in human nature a 'unity' which demands, to do
justice to it, at least two levels of discussion: the level of the mechanical,
appropriate for the outside observer, and the level of the personal,
appropriate
from the inside standpoint of the agent himself." He sees the
biblical view
as a spiritual life 'embodied' in man's psychological mechanism.
David J. E. Ingram
Plan and Purpose in the Universe is treated by David J. E. Ingram. They are not
contradictory but part of a greater whole. At present we cannot show the link
between gravitation and electromagnetic energy and matter, but scientists are
active in trying to find this relationship which they feel must
exist. So a relationship
will eventually be found between plan and purpose, even though a
scientist cannot
prove that "a pattern necessarily involves a purpose." The
author stresses
that the best way God could reveal his plan is for "Mind to
become man"
as He has done through His entering man's society in the person of His Son. He
writes, "To my mind, the complete and over-all plan and purpose
which Christianity
gives us is far more intellectually satisfying, far more allembracing
and coherent
than any alternative view." "But if we ourselves are to have any part
in that pat-
tern . we require not only the example of
His life but the power that comes from His death and resurrection to enter into
it ourselves."
Robert L. F. Boyd
The final discussion is on Reason, Revelation and Faith. Robert L. F. Boyd says that any guiding light for behavior
must come either
from our own reasoning or be given to us by revelation. Since man alone among
the animals "can take an active, intelligent and purposive part
in moulding
his own future" he should do it. If men reject revelation, it is because
"either their God is too small (to quote J. B. Phillips) or their cosmos
is too small." To my mind, Boyd shows how big God is, and relates Him to
the mechanistic world very effectively when he says, "He is the eternal,
unconditional cause of all, of all its being and of all its history, of all the
complex pattern of its causal relationship and of all its events. Its existence
is always and momentarily contingent on His willing and that same
will is continually
fulfilled by its opera
tions." Miracles then become, not a violation of nature, but "still
God's activity and in no sense irregular from the divine point of
view,"
I conclude this review of these concepts by four men of science, a geologist,
a professor of communication and two physicists by this quotation
from Professor
Boyd which clearly states an attitude needed by all scientists. "In this
age of science we require in our search for truth an empirical openness to all
the data that may he relevant. In approaching matters of faith, therefore, we
must not reject the evidence of historical events."
The Christian admits that his belief in a mind, or soul, or spirit, is based on
his belief in the reliability of the revelation in Scripture. Here is
the crucial
issue: is the Bible true? Once that faith has been established the reader can
confidently search the Scriptures for answers that science cannot give because
scientific research is confined to the material aspects of the universe.
Obviously there is the problem of how mind, a nonphysical entity, can exert its
control on matter. What originates the thought that causes one to want to raise
his arm? Each of us is conscious of a self, a being, a person within but beyond
his brain and his muscles that somehow initiates brain functions
which cause muscles
to work. This personal hunch is corroborated by the many Scripture references
to a distinction between body and soul.
God is not to be used to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Rather nature in all its variety testifies to the activity and nature of its Creator.
Robert F. D. Clark
In his provocative book, The Christian Stake in
Science"), Robert E. D. Clark speculates on the seat of the soul. Perhaps
the view of Eccles "according to which the mind lives in the
dominant hemisphere
-that is, in the cortex of the left side for a righthanded
person" is a likely
view, He also thinks that possibly the ether of space is the meeting
point between
God, the Spirit, and the matter with which we are acquainted. Somehow
pure spirit
has to influence obvious matter. Although Eccles is merely making a hypothesis
here, we can be assured that the nonmaterial does have its way of influencing
the material. Dr. William Wallace in his lecture to the philosophy of science
conference at American University in the summer of 1966 said,
"Tile scientific
climate now permits scientists to allow for the immaterial, even the spiritual.
No responsible author maintains there is now a conflict between
science and religion,
although there are tensions."
On the positive side recall that much of life is explained on a
spiritual basis.
Every man has a sense of what is right. If not for himself, at least for what
is not right for the other fellow to do to him. Our communication with a higher
spiritual power, with God Himself, is the result of our own spirit recognizing
Him and having feelings about Him. How could mere material substance
imagine anything
which is nonmaterial?
J. Bronowski
It has seemed to me unreasonable that man, with his imagination and ability to
state abstract ideas about his past and future, should spend his mental energy
in trying to show that he is just a mass of interacting chemicals. Therefore I
find it refreshing to read the review On The Uniqueness of Man in Science"
where J. Bronowski of Salk Institute stresses some of our unique features. This
review is of the work of the noted paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson, who
is not noted for his appreciation of teleology. But the review quotes
this significant
statement of Simpson's. "Looking at man as a biological species,
some biologists,
professional and amateur, have become so preoccupied with the fact that man is
an animal that they have neglected the fact that he is an absolutely
unique animal."
I think his uniqueness is the result of Godgiven attributes.
REFERENCES
1Douglas Spanner in The Christian Graduate, Dec. 1962.
2David L. Dye. Faith and the Physical World. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
Grand Rapids, Mich. 1966. p. 49.
3p. 51
4p. 65
5p. 72
6John Brobeck, Mechanism and Responsibility, a pamphlet of the Wheaton College
Scholastic Honor Society. Feb. 27, 1968.
7p. 83
8Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry. Chemical and Engineering
News. Aug. 21,
1967. Science, June 21, 1968.
9D. L. MacKay, editor, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe,
Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 39 Bedford Square, London, W C 1. 1965
10Robert E. D. Clark. The Christian Stake in Science. Moody Press.
Chicago. 1967
11Science, Vol. 165. 16 August 1969. p. 680