Science in Christian Perspective
Conference Report
THE RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE TO PRACTICAL THEOLOGY
Reported by John A. McIntyre and Richard H. Bube
From: JASA 24 (March 1972): 27-29.
For three days from September 10-12, 1971, a group of 13 scientists
(4 physicists,
3 materials scientists, 4 biologists and 2 chemists), 10 theologians
(8 seminary
professors and 2 campus ministers), and 10 others (2 university administrators,
1 church administrator, 1 co-director of Center for Science in the
Public interest,
1 businessman, 1 editor for C & E News, 3 graduate students and 1
consultant)
met together at the Kirkridge Lodge in the Pocono Mountains to
discuss the impact
of science on Christian action in the world today. The occasion for the meeting
was the presence in the United States of Dr. Carl Fricdrich von Wcizsackcr, who
made three addresses to the group on the Christian's interaction with society:
"Philosophical Problems," "The Background for
Decision;' and "Practical
Problems." Six other participants also gave addresses on related
topics.
Dr. voo Weizsaeker is presently Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Hamburg.
His early training and professional career, however, were in the
field of nuclear
and astrophysics. In addition, as a Christian, he has been a major
figure in church
and theological circles, having been Gifford Lecturer (1959-60) and initiator
of the Gottingen Dialogues between theologians and physicists (F. Gugarten, R.
Bultmano, N. Heisenherg). In addition to these significantly
Christian activities,
he has been involved in social and political affairs as the initiator
and ensigner
of the Gottingcn Manifesto opposing government plans for nuclear rearmament of
the West German Federal Army, initiator and cofounder of the Society of German
Scientists, regular participant in the Pugwash Conferences, vice president of
the Institute for Strategic Studies, and cu-founder of the German Society for
Peace and Conflict
Research, Furthermore, he is the author of The History of
Nature, The Relevence of Science, and The World View of
Modern Physics. He is a member of the Max-Planek Gcsellschauft,
Deutsche Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Deutsche Alsademie fur Spraehe und Dichtung,
Dentsches P.E.N. Zentrum der Bundesrepublik, Gottingen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
and Vereningung Deutseher Wissensehaftler. Awards include the Max
Planck Medal,
Goethe-Prize, Peace Class of Order Pour-le merite, Frankfurt Peace Prize, and
Erasmus Prize.
Highlights of Preliminary Talks
Professor Gerhard Barsch, physicist from Penn State, pointed out the
growing scientific
studies that fall into the realm of Future Planning, with efforts being made to
develop various scenarios of the future. All such planning must
assume some kind
of value system. How should this value system be chosen? One
suggestion that has
been made is that an international poll be held! Professor Barsch
emphasized the
importance of involvement of Christians in this kind of activity.
Professor Barsch
also offered the following model for Christians in the world today, which will
appeal to solid-state scientists: Christians as
"activating" imperfections
in the world "crystal."
Dr. Kenneth Vaux, whose principal concern is the correlation of
medicine and Christian
ethics at Baylor College of Medicine, discussed two interface issues:
the destiny
of the universe and the nature of the human being. He proposed that Christians
must say "No" to Bultmann's existentializing theology out
of reality,
and also "No" to Moltman since theology should deal not
only with what
could he, but with what should be. Dr. Vaux argued that if cosmic
forces are "entropie,"
then human resignation to the inevitable is the only response; on the
other hand
if cosmic forces are "purposive," then human responsibility
is demanded.
Unless this life, this history, this cosmos are at least a correlate
of ultimate
meaning (i.e., of God's fulfilling His purpose), then Dr. Vaux felt
that nothing
is justified except pessimisim. Quote: "The meaning of Divine Providence
is human responsibility."
Professor Robert Fraocoeur, biologist from Fairleigh Dickinson,
argued for recognition
of man as co-creator, particularly in terms of the growing technology
of reproduction,
which is already raising basic questions about sexuality.
Dr. Ian Barhoor, Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Department
of Religion
at Carleton College, considered attitudes with respect to nature and
technology.
He summarized replies to Lynn White's claim that environmental degradation has
Judaeo-Christian roots as follows: (a) non-Christian cultures also harm their
environment; (h) there are diverse strands in the Bible, and emphasis
on stewardship
and the intrinsic value of nature should not he forgotten; (c) the importance
of later developments in the world, such as capitalism and
industrialization cannot
be overlooked; and (d) in America there are special effects due to a
"frontier"
mentality and practices carried over into "non-frontier" situations.
Dr. Barhour also saw two revolutions currently being waged against
modern technology:
(1) the pre-affluence revolution by the poor and black, and (2) the
post-affluence
revolution by the youth and conservationists. Historically a tension has always
existed between conservation and social justice for the following reasons: (a)
the dispossessed benefit least from technology, (h) technology tends
to reinforce
the existing power structure, (e) the free enterprise system is insufficient to
direct technology, (d) the social costs of technology must be paid by
the users,
(e) there are limits on economic growth possible, and (f) there is a
growing concern
for distributive justice.
Professor Rostum Roy, Professor of Solid State at Penn State,
discussed his model
of how a Christian can participate practically in the decision-making
structures
of a democratic society. The following speaker, A.J.
Fritsch, S.J., co-director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, disagreed
with Professor Roy about working within the system and emphasized instead the
need to work outside the system as a modern prophet. He felt that an
environmentally
balanced system is impossible within the profit motive. Further
discussion emphasized
the need for both kinds of approach, with openness rather than condemnation of
one by the other.
Talks by von Weizsacker
In his first talk on "The Philosophical Background,"
Professor von \Veizsaeker
discussed some basic features of scientific theories. He pointed out
that science
is usually successful by limiting itself to a given field. Physics
does not ask,
"What is matter?" Biology does not ask, "What is
Life?" Psychology
does not ask, "What is mind?" But major breakthroughs do occur when
such field-transcending questions are asked.
Von Wcizsackcr argued that the evolution of science is identical with
the science
of evolution. Not only does nature change (or evolve) with time, but
man's theories
of nature evolve with time. One can think of a scientific theory as occupying
a certain niche (explaining certain phenomena of nature). The occupation of the
niche may not be very successful (such as the calorie theory of heat); one or
two facts in disagreement, however, are not sufficient to lead
scientists to abandon
the theory. Rather, a new and more successful theory must be introduced which
drives the old theory out of its niche.
Dr. von Weizsacker's thoughtful and carefully qualified remarks, coupled with his humility and Christian understanding, led to an unforgettable experience of how Christians should join together and share the burdens of their world.
Two fields of science involve irreversible phe
nomena: organic evolution and thermodynamics. If, as is done in
statistical mechanics,
the Second Law is defined as stating that systems change toward conditions of
highest probability (entropy always increases), then the initial conditions at
the beginning of evolution as a system of individual atoms do not represent a
very probable state. Complexity is a better index of entropy than
disorder. These
atoms will combine into molecules and these molecules into more
complicated ones
and so on, through the stages of evolution. An interesting confirmation of this
progression is that the evolutionary history in the rocks always
points from the
amoeba towards man and never from man toward the amoeba. Of course,
this confirmation
is valid only if one assumes that evolutionary history has always been subject
to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Von Weizsiicker emphasized that, whether
his novel suggestion that entropy increases in the evolutionary process proves
to he true or not, there is never any problem for evolution from the
Second Law.
This follows from the fact that outside energy sources always supply
the necessary
entropy to drive evolution even if the process itself produces a
decrease in entropy
(leads to less probable structures).
From these rather abstract remarks about the foundations of science, Professor
von Weizsicker proceeded in his second lecture on "The Background
for Dc
cision", to introduce the concept of ambivalence as a factor which enters
into all courses of action in society. By ambivalence, he was referring to the
fact that when a social action is taken to carry out a purpose, even though the
action is successful, there will he associated results which are undesirable.
Examples are the development of technology with its deleterious effect on the
environment or the advances in health care with the resulting
population explosion.
Some people feel that such ambivalence can he escaped by changing the
social system
or by replacing the politicians. However, von \Veizsacker is
convinced that ambivalence
is unavoidable in the human situation. He noted that the liberal, capitalistic
political system of the West with its desirable freedoms has led to
social injustice.
However, the replacement of the capitalistic system by socialism with its goal
of social justice led to a restriction of freedom. Such ambivalence
is not surprising
to the Christian whose faith is based on the reality of the fall of
man. Sometimes
however, the church has forgotten this fact in its passion for a better world
social order.
The second lecture closed with an analysis of the problem of war. For the next
ten years one might count on an extension of the present stability of
the nuclear
weapons systems. However, with new systems being introduced about every seven
years, the present balance cannot he expected to prevail
indefinitely. Thus, unless
something drastically new is done, a nuclear war would appear to be inevitable.
The only suggestion that might be made is that of a world government
with control
over the nuclear armaments. However, the possibility of civil war would still
remain. Also, the possibility of emigrating from an oppressive government would
vanish. But humanly speaking, what else is there to try? World
government appears
to he a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the avoidance of war.
Von Weizsackcr's third talk took a more personal note. He spoke of
his soul-searching
after having participated in the atomic bomb project in Nazi Germany. He almost
gave up science; the encouragement from a conversation with Karl
Barth was instrumental
in his continuing as a scientist. Barth told him, "Continue in science if
you have Christian faith that Christ will return again; otherwise don't."
For a Christian, the outlook for a radical change in history is
justifiable.
While the individual Christian must decide how to act in this world, the Church
must likewise make such decisions. Von Weizsaekcr again spoke to this
point from
his own experience. After the war, he found his scientific colleagues
abroad often
took a moralistic, judgmental attitude toward him as a German nuclear
scientist.
On the other hand, the Christian church came into Germany after the war to help
those in need. The attitude of the Christians was: "We are all
sinners together".
Because of this experience, von \Veizsackcr turned in a serious way
to the Christian
Church of his childhood.
Another feature of the church in postwar Germany also attracted him. The church
was the only organization that was courageous enough and altruistic enough to
take a stand on some politically unpopular issues such as refugees.
Thus von \Veizsdckcr emphasized that, when taking action in the
world, the proper
attitude of the church is at least as important as what it says and
does. It should
speak the truth as it sees it (and he sure that it does its homework), but also
it should speak with humility.
In summary, the colloquy with Professor von Weizsheker was most fruitful and
impressive. Here was a distinguished scholar in several fields
willing to devote
his keen mind to the intractable practical problems that do not fit neatly into
a scholarly discipline. His thoughtful and carefully qualified remarks coupled
with his humility and Christian understanding led to an unforgettable
experience
of how Christians should join together and share the burdens of their
world.