Science in Christian Perspective
Whatever Happened to Scientific
Prestige?*
RICHARD H. BUBE
Department of Materials Science
Stanford University, Stanford,
California 94305
From: JASA 23 (March 1971): 7-9.
Within the past twenty-five years we have seen the rise of the
prestige of science
to unprecedented heights and also its current fall toward unprecedented depths.
It is important that we understand the causes of these changes and resolve upon
a consistent course of action for men who are both Christians and
scientists.
Four Descriptive Tableaux
1. I was an undergraduate in physics at Brown University when the atomic bomb
was first dropped 25 years ago. I rushed to my physics professor to ask him if
it could really be true that the atom had been split. He assured me that indeed
it was true. We rejoiced at this scientific triumph that had assured
a rapid end
of the war. It was only in later years that we began to wonder whether it had
really been necessary to drop the first bomb on the populated area of Hiroshima
rather than in some unpopulated spot as a warning. And why was it necessary to
repeat the devastation over the second populated area of Nagasaki? If
scientists
were not to blame for the decision to drop the bomb, they were
certainly responsible
for producing it.
2. The San Francisco Mime Company paid a visit to the Stanford campus
during last
spring's days of tension. They presented a play called 'The Rape of
the Earth."
Representatives of business, government, the university and science
were trotted
out to respond to the people's needs. Business advocated more rape; government
advocated some paper work; the university advocated further study.
The scientist
had a plan. When the people protested that science's plan would cause the death
and suffering of many poor people, the scientist replied, "Uh,
uh! Now you're
being subjective again!"
3. A university meeting was held to discuss the implications of
military-related
research on the university campus. A speaker arose from the audience
and insisted
on his scientific right to pursue knowledge or application regardless of what
society might do with it. If he wanted to work on poison gas or
biological warfare,
it was his academic right to proceed.
4. A trend was emphasized by the Kinsey report. If many young people engaged in
pre-marital sex, then this meant that pre-marital sex was natural,
and if it was
natural, it was certainly good. Other scientific reports have added
to the confusion.
Scientists report
that the use of marijuana does people no harm. Scientists report that they have
scientific proof that exposure to hard-core pornography does people
no harm. Meanwhile
our society is decaying around us.
From all skies and for all kinds of reasons, science is under attack.
Recent History
Science is a way of knowing based on the interpretation of sense contacts with
the physical world.
For over a century the scientific method has been exalted as the only road to
truth and as capable of providing all the answers to man's problems.
Science won
the war. Science provided improvements in transportation, medicine
and communications
that revolutionized life. When national need to catch up to the
Soviet space program
developed, science was exalted even further. Science was introduced
in Kindergarten
and funds for scientific research almost exceeded what could be
reasonably spent.
Now all of this is in reverse. Why?
Fast History
Some insight into the present situation can be obtained by reflecting
on the period
of Deism that followed Newton. Successes in producing mechanistic descriptions
of the world led to the attempt to produce a rationalistic religious and world
outlook. It was the day of the clock-maker complex as the model for God. What
started as a defense of religion turned into first a substitute for
religion and
then a base for an attack on religion.
This situation eventually gave rise to a reaction in terms of the
Romantic Rebellion
of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Romantics emphasized immediate
experience, freedom, individuality, dynamic change and novelty.
Religiously-oriented
Romantics emphasized devotion in life instead of only in creed, and
the pietistic
movement started.
We are living in a similar day. Modern Deists uphold a
"mechanical man"
to stand alongside the "mechanical God" of the 18th century Deists.
As says Dean Wooldridge in Mechanical Man,
This is not to say that complete atheism will be required . . . . There will be
no reason why the term "Cod" cannot still be used to denote
the seemingly
inexplicable origin of the laws and particles of physics.
The Hippies are today's secular Romantics; the Pentecostalists are
today's religious
Romantics. Everywhere rationalism is on the run.
The inveterate assumption underlying the gospel of progress is the assumption
that the growth of science and technology, of man's comprehension and mastery
of nature, will necessarily produce an increase in human happiness
and well-being.
But is this true? Certainly there has been progress of a sort in
Western society
and, over the long view, for mankind as a whole. Life has become
easier for many.
More people have opportunities to study, to learn, to enjoy. Yet,
strangely enough,
man is not happy. He wants to know whence he came, whither he is
going, and what
he must do to find peace with himself and his fellow man. His mind grows weary
thinking of indefinite progress onward and upward, of infinite future
possibilities
to he realized, when he is unable to realize a fraction of the possibilities of
his present nature.
John C. Greene,
Darwin and the Modern World View, Mentor Books
(1963), p. 96
Our Situation
Our difficulty has followed largely from the tacit acceptance of the
proposition
that science is the only road to truth, and that therefore anything
unscientific
is either unknowable or false. (This proposition must, of course,
except itself.)
We smiled at the naivete of the Soviet astronaut who reported the confirmation
of his atheism by not finding Cod during his space trip, yet we
agreed with him.
The scientific investigation of the mechanisms of the human body
provided a model
of an organic computer, or of a complex organic machine. Since science provided
the whole truth, it followed that man was only an organic computer,
only a complex
machine. The scientific investigation of the universe revealed a fantastically
immense and complex structure in both the physical world and in human history.
Since science provided the whole truth, it followed that man was an
insignificant
object caught up in the vast turmoil of impersonal contingencies and fates.
Destruction of Meaning
Scientific prestige is down because science is equated with the destruction of
meaning and faith in life, with rationalism and impersonalism.
A machine buffeted by fate is hardly a man. Not only did Cod die, man himself
died. The baseless faith assumption that science provided the only
road to truth
led to the engulfment of modem society in meaninglessness and despair. Bertrand
Russell was faithful to his convictions; he proclaimed that only
despair was consistent
with a scientific view of the
world. The pattern of despair is available for everyone to see in modern art,
music, theater, philosophy and theology.
Now a man has to square his view of the world with his experience. Although he
believes that science had shown by a rational process that he is only a complex
machine, he can not square this with his own experience in which he knows that
he loves, decides, hates, responds, and takes part in meaningful
human relationships.
How is this possible? It cannot be possible-so he thinks-on the old basis of a
Cod who created the world and cares for the individuals in it, for
hasn't science
made these traditional religious views unacceptable? If it is going
to be possible
at all, he is going to have to provide the way himself. By a
non-rational-or even
an irrationalprocess, he is going to have to separate himself from
the rational,
physical, finite, material aspects of this life, and construct a
religious faith,
a god if you will, all by himself. The widespread interest that we see all
around
us, in astrology, scientology, witchcraft, drug-use, and increased interest in
Eastern religions, with their rejection of the value of the finite
and the material,
all hear witness to this almost hysterical attempt by man to
resurrect his humanity
in the modern world.
It is no surprise that when science is equated with the destruction of meaning
and religious faith in life; and when a non-rational or irrational approach to
life is equated with the only way to reestablish the humanity of man,
that strong
anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments develop. Seldom before have more
people been seeking more desperately for what can be found fully only
in Christian faith.
Ethical Impotence
Scientific prestige is down because of an enhanced awareness of the
ethical impotence
of science. Scientists toil away at increasing the store of knowledge, perhaps
with the hope that some good may come of it, but traditionally rather
indifferent
to anything other than the contribution to human knowledge. Men take
the products
of science and use them for good, but perhaps even more commonly for evil. The
application of his knowledge falls beyond the competence and
frequently the interest
of the scientist. In fact,
If the ultimate ends of action have no basis in the structure of reality, there
is little point to science. The passion for science then appears as
an odd preference
on the part of the scientist for a certain kind of activity. This is precisely
the situation in which Darwin found himself at the end of his
spiritual evolution.
Science had become his passion, the only thing that made life bearable, but its
ultimate significance was no longer clear to him. He was sure that he had been
right in devoting his life to science, but he could not say why.
John C. Greene,
Darwin and the Modern World View, Mentor Books,
(1963), p. 112
There is still another misconception about science that might be corrected by
a greater emphasis on the verb sense. The misconception I refer to is the view
of science as the all powerful, final authority. The teachers of science in the
elementary grades, in the high schools, and in the colleges are too
often responsible
for originating and perpetuating this image of science as the savior
of mankind.
The teachers, however, are abetted in this distortion by textbooks
that are overwhelmingly
taken up with the noun sense of science and in which the subject is presented
in fait accompli fashion. Science is not free of dogmatic thought and
must constantly
guard against it. . . One remedy for both the dogmatism and the savior image of
science is a study of the history of science. Such a study, even if
it is rather
superficial, will make a mockery of the dogmatism and will establish
how science
has "backed and filled," advanced and retreated.
John S. Rigden,
Department of Physics, University of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri.
From "Reshaping
the Image of Physics," Physics Today, October 1970, pp. 5 1,52
if he is faithful to his discipline alone, the scientist can make no
ethical judgment
whatsoever. He has no basis for saying that anything "ought" to be;
he can only comment on what is. As ethical beings scientists
sometimes feel driven
to derive ethical judgments from science; in such a case they can conclude only
one thing; what is, ought to be. This is a faith judgment with no
basis in science.
Good and bad are terms that a scientist per se can use only in a pragmatic and
never in a moral sense.
Today moral concerns are considered vital, even by those whose
actions themselves
seem unrelated to their concerns. The impersonal carelessness of
"scientific
objectivity" is an alienating factor. To be publicly indifferent
or unaware
of the importance of ethical decisions is inexcusable. To be unable to produce
the needed ethical guides from science-after claiming to be able to do so-again
leads to the anti-science sentiment.
Illusion of Deliverance
Scientific prestige is down because the scientific faith that
promised deliverance
to mankind has proved openly to be an illusion. Technological
advances have produced
conveniences and delights, but they have also produced pollution and
destruction
of the environment. Improvements in medical treatment have enriched the lives
of many, but they have also ac
centuated the population explosion and its unsolved problems. On
every side science's
grand claim to be the modern savior is exploded. Many of today's young people
tend to look to science as a slave-maker rather than as a deliverer.
Response
What then of us? As scientists we know the importance and the
validity of a scientific
approach and of a rational (not a rationalistic) view of life. To us
an irrational
approach is bound to degrade the human being. To us the loss of
scientific prestige
is a dangerous sign. But also, as human beings and Christians we know full well
the limitations of the scientific method. We recognize the fallacy of exalting
science as the only way to truth. We appreciate the causes for the
loss of scientific
prestige. Here we are one with the Hippies, and it is important that we realize
it. The Romantic Rebels of today will not accept the dictum of the
modern Deist-and
like every other rebel he is likely to overthrow everything in reaction.
What can we do? Let me suggest a few possibilities.
1. Make it clear that science is one way of knowing, but not the only way. That
the rational and scientific view of life is one of the important perspectives,
but not the only one.
2. Make it clear that science is not an infallible impersonal
exercise of unconcerned
automata, but the human enterprise of fallible men. That scientists are human
beings who care about other human beings.
3. Emphasize that scientific investigations cannot be expected to
answer the most
ultimate and basic human problems, but that these answers must, even
in the lives
of scientists, be obtained through a religious encounter with the
living God,
4. Challenge the postulates of modern popular philosophy which are based on the
false premise that science has made all traditional moral, ethical
and religious
bases unacceptable.
5. Work at the development and integration of a rational faith as the only way
to prevent nonrational or irrational excesses.
6. Recognize that the pursuit of science calls for a personal
commitment to service
through science, and that only those with a real calling to this
commitment should
be encouraged to enter a career in science.
Conclusion
Misrepresentations and misconceptions of the purpose and power of science have
come to full flower in our lifetimes. We cannot expect to overcome these unless
we are willing to put our own understanding of science and life in order, and
unless we are willing to spend time and effort in communicating our humanity to
others.