Science in Christian Perspective
Notes on "Science and the Whole Person"
A Personal
Integration of Scientific
and Biblical Perspectives
Part 7
Man Come of Age?
RICHARD H. BUBE
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 30 (June 1978): 81-87.
Although in many ways times and circumstances do not change from one generation
to another, and even from one century to another, there are ways in which man's
responsibility does continually change. In one of Jesus' parables, he
gives expression
to this correlation between knowledge and responsibilty, "Every
one to whom
much is given, of him will much be required." (Luke 12:48) As there can be
no denying that man's knowledge about the world and himself has
continually increased over the years, so there can be no denying that
man's responsibility
has increased whether he is aware of it or not, and whether he wishes
it or not.
There are several different ways of responding to this situation.
(1) The growth of man's knowledge has liberated him from the superstitions and
rituals of his past ignorance. Man has come of age. He is now able to stand on
his own feet instead of relying upon some religious
crutch. Because man's knowledge is growing, and because knowledge is sufficient
to save, the acquisition of more knowledge will eventually overcome some of the
problems that only partial knowledge is currently causing us. Man is finally in
charge of the world and himself. He is the master of his fate; he has
become the
captain of his soul. All things are possible, and anything possible should be
attempted.
(2) The growth of man's knowledge has led him deeper and deeper into
difficulties
because of the mismatch between man's understanding of how to do and
his understanding
of what he ought to do. Whereas his knowledge of how has increased by leaps and
bounds, his understanding of ought remains at a primitive level of
self-centered
ness. Man should therefore beware of increasing knowledge in many
areas of life,
and should willingly reject the responsibility that is thrust upon him by what
he already knows. God took care of things in the past, and man only
gets himself
into trouble when he attempts to assume the prerogatives of God.
(3) Man has come of age in many ways and this cannot be denied; man
has not come
of age in many other ways and this also cannot be denied. Man's moral
wisdom falls
far short of his technological capability. He can neither plunge ahead with the
pursuit of technology in the belief that it will eventually deliver
him, nor can
he forsake the responsibility and choices which his current technology places
upon him. Rather he must assess the present choices and seek to
inform his future
decisions with as much moral and practical wisdom as he can muster.
For the Christian,
the basis for this moral wisdom must come from a relationship of the individual
with God, as this is then shared with the community.
To speak of "man come of age" is also to imply something about God.
Each of the three positions just mentioned has the following
corollary implications
about God. (1) God, if he ever existed, is no longer necessary. Very likely the
concept of "God" was born of fear and ignorance in primitive man as
an explanation for the unknown and as a palliative for his insecurity. To speak
of man come of age is to declare that this God is dead. (2) God is in some way
constantly striving with man. In spite of his efforts, God fails to
keep man from
learning more and more about the world. Man's knowledge is a threat against his
belief in God. The evidence for the existence of God is to be found
in his intervention
in the world in areas where man not only has been ignorant but must
remain ignorant.
(3) All knowledge that man acquires is obtained through either the
active or passive
activity of God. Therefore it is God who has brought man "to
age" technologically,
and it is God who is able to bring man
This continuing series of articles is based on courses given at Stanford University, Fuller Theological Seminary, Regent College, and Menlo Park Presbyterian Church. Previous articles were published as follows. 1. "Science Isn't Everything," March (1976), pp. 33-37.2, "Science Isn't Nothing," June (1976), pp. 82-87. 3. "The Philosophy and Practice of Science," September (1976), pp. 127-132. 4. "Pseudo-Science and Pseudo-Theology. (A) Cult and Occult," March (1977), pp. 22-28. 5. "PseudoScience and Pseudo-Theology. (B) Scientific Theology," September (1977), pp. 124-129. 6. "Pseudo-Science and PseudoTheology. (C) Cosmic Consciousness," December (1977), pp. 165-174.
"to age" in making responsible choices in an increasingly
complex world.
Future choices must neither be rejected completely, nor taken lightly without
due consideration of God's purpose in the world and the nature of man made in
the image of God.
Consideration of these three implications about God shows that the
first two agree
in regarding God as the explanation for unexplainable phenomena in the world;
the first dispenses with God as these phenomena become explainable,
and the second
tries to prevent the explanation of these phenomena in natural terms so as to
reserve some place for God. Only the third recognizes that God is Lord of the
natural and the supernatural, that a natural description of a natural
event does
not eliminate God as the sustainer of that event, and that God must be Lord in
all of life, not just in small recesses of ignorance reserved for
him. The first
two positions are speaking about a God-of-the-gaps, not the God of
the Bible.
The God-of-the-Gaps
The phrase "man come of age" has had contemporary emphasis given to
it by its use in the letters of German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer' written
while he was in prison for participating in a plot to overthrow the
Hitler regime
in World War II. Since Bonhoeffer probes the meaning of "man
come of age"
and "the God-of-the-gaps" out of a Christian context and
yet in a manner
peculiarly relevant to modem man, I have chosen to carry out this discussion of
man come of age after the suggestions offered in partial and tentative form in
these prison letters of Bonhoeffer. Arrested on April 5, 1943,
Bonhoeffer's letters
of interest to us here number just eleven, written to his friend
Eberhard Bethge
between April 30 and August 3, 1944. Bonhoeffer was executed at Flossenburg on
April 9, 1945, only a brief time before the end of the war, but his thoughts as
noted here and in the following installment remain a challenge and an insight
to us today.
It is in his letter of May 25, 1944 that Bonhoeffer first makes the
clear connection
between his concerns for the future of Christian faith and the
concept of a God-of-the-gaps.
Weizssacker's book Das Weltbild der Physik is still keeping me very busy. It has
again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use Cod as a stopgap
for the incompleteness of our knowledge. - . . God is no stopgap; he
must be recognized
at the center of our life, not when we are at the end of our resources.2
With little previous inputs from the physical sciences, Bonhoeffer was quick to
make the connection between Weixskcker's comments on the worldview of physics
and the larger problems of life. In particular, he saw the correlation between
the fallacy of the God-of-the-gaps in physical science with the fallacy of the
God-of-the-gaps in other aspects of life.
There is a long history of the attempt by Christians to prove or at
least to defend
their belief in the existence and activity of God by proposing that it is God
alone who acts in areas in which man is ignorant of any natural mechanism. The
argument runs in this way: man may now know much about physics,
chemistry, biology
and the like, but there remain certain key physical mechanisms, chemical mechanisms, or biological mechanisms, which
must forever elude him because such mechanisms do not in fact exist. These gaps
in natural description are filled only by the recognition that God
acts directly
in these gaps above and beyond any physical, chemical or biological mechanism.
In this interpretation God remains the Great Mechanician, and the possibility
of a complete physical, chemical or biological description-even in principles
forever ruled out by the very existence and activity of God.
Sir Isaac Newton invoked the God-of-the-gaps when certain irregularities in the
motion of the planets could not be explained by his concurrent theory
of gravitation;
since the mechanics of the theory of gravity could not explain this
irregularity,
Newton concluded that it must be a direct manifestation of the intervention of
God. Newton was wrong; subsequent analysis of the details of the
planetary system
provided a natural mechanism for these irregularities. Supposed
evidence for the
activity of God was lost.
The list of phenomena invoked by Christians to defend the
God-of-the-gaps is long
indeed and still very much present with us. Formerly only God could
heal the sick
or bring the rain; but soon men also could heal the sick and even
sometimes bring
the rain. Evidences for the activity of God were lost. Evolution was declared
impossible in principle because the supernatural intervention of God
was required
to bring life into the non-living, to bring soul into the soulless,
and to bring
spirit into the human being. Man's exploration of space was condemned
on the grounds
that God had made earth man's proper domain and man should remain ignorant of
outer space. Today it is still argued by some that scientists will be unable to
produce life in the laboratory from non-living materials because only
a supernatural
intervention of God would be adequate what will be said when life is produced in
the laboratory? Only God can determine the sex or personality parameters of a
fetus-what will be said when men control some or many of these characteristics?
Only God can decide when a life shall end-yet men must decide whether
to use "heroic"
life-preserving measures or permit life to end, must choose organ
donors and recipients
to preserve life or watch while death comes. In the world in which God places
us today, we often do not have the option between choosing and not
choosing-often
not choosing is already a choice.
The continuous chain of evidence in the physical and biological sciences is so
compelling that most knowledgeable Christians today recognize the
fallacy of the
God-of-the-gaps approach. They see that such an advocacy results in the paradox
of less and less evidence for the existence and activity of God resulting from
more and more knowledge of his creation. They emphasize the
importance of seeing
God in all phenomena, the natural as much as the supernatural, and of
recognizing
that the very existence of the material universe depends moment-by-moment upon
the sustaining activity of God. This growing consensus can be summarized in the
words of Malcolm Jeeves,
God, to the theist, while being the cause of everything, is in the scientific
sense the explanation of notbing.3
There can be no denying that man's responsibility has increased whether he is aware of it or not, and whether he wishes it or not.
Today many Christians are willing to admit that a complete
description in physical
and biological categories may well be possible, at least in principle, without
the "God-hypothesis" supplying a missing mechanism in these
categories,
but they do not conclude that this invalidates descriptions in other categories
as well.
Bonhoeffer's perception of the relevance of the God-of-the-gaps
problem went beyond
that of the physical sciences alone. If the concept of a
God-of-the-gaps was insufficient
and in fact destructive of effective Christian witness in the case of
the physical
and the biological, could it be expected to be any less insufficient
and destructive
in the case of the religious? If the search for the reality of God in the gaps
of man's ignorance in physics and biology were doomed to failure, is
it not likely
that the search for the reality of God in the gaps of man's ignorance
of religious
matters is likewise doomed? Bonhoeffer argues for a definite
correlation here.
Religious people speak of God when human knowledge has come to an end, or when
human resources fail -in tact it is always the Jeus ex machina that they bring
on to the scene, either for the apparent solution of insoluble problems, or as
strength in human failure.
It always seems to me that we are trying anxiously in this way to reserve some
place for God; I should like to speak of God not on the boundaries but at the
center, not in weakness but in strength; and therefore not in death and guilt
but in man's life and goodness.4
It must be remembered that the term "religion" had a
pejorative meaning
for Bonhoeffer. The religious frame of mind is to Bonhoeffer a
culturally conditioned
perspective on life, which can in principle he almost completely separated from
Christian commitment to Cod in Jesus Christ. So he reminds us that the weakness
of the physicist in physics or of the biologist in biology at one time gave the
appearance of evidence for the strength of God in filling the gap of ignorance.
When the strength of the physicist in physics and of the biologist in biology
became known, however, it appeared that the weakness of the God-hypothesis had
been demonstrated. Bonhoeffer argues that the search for the strength
of God only
in the weakness of man can have no other effect than to destroy the reality of
God for us.
Bonhoeffer likewise sees the emphasis upon the God-of-the-gaps in the
"inner"
and "private" aspects of life as a natural consequence of
the squeezing
out of the God-of-the-gaps from the external and public aspects of scientific
life. It is a continuing attempt to preserve some small place for God
where man's
knowledge cannot touch, and thus to maintain an argument for the existence and
activity of God immune to man's scientific advances. The distinction
between the
"inner" man and the "outer" man is certainly not biblical;
the Bible is always concerned with the whole man, with a man's deeds
and not just
with a man's motives. As good deeds do not justify evil motives, so good motives do not justify evil deeds. A man
lives as much from "without" to "within" as he lives from
"within" to "without." Why, then, asks Bonhoeffer, do we attempt
to find God in some special way in the "inner"?
I therefore want to start from the premise that God should not he smuggled into
some last secret place.5
For these reasons, therefore, Bonhoeffer argues that we must search out what it
means to reject the God-of-the-gaps hypothesis in all respects of life, and to
ask ourselves anew the question: What is Christ for us today in a world without
the God-of-the-gaps?
Man Come of Age
Although the phrase, "man come of age," has the ring of
human exaltation
about it, it should be remembered that in a profound sense, the Christian is a
"man come of age" according to Paul in his letter to the
Galatians 3:23-26.
Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under
restraint until
faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came,
that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we
are no longer
under a custodian; for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God,
through faith.
Formerly under the tutorship of the law, like a student to his
schoolmaster, now
the Christian is set free to the maturity of freedom in Christ, not
to break the
law but to live responsibly in a way such that it will be fulfilled.
Man has certainly also come of age in the sense that he is called upon today to
make decisions about the world and himself that he was formerly not called upon
and was intrinsically unable to make. In Christian perspective, we
must conclude
that God is bringing man to the point where he has the ability and knowledge to
respond to more and more human needs. If this is the case, not only
is it possible
for man to make more decisions today than ever before, but it becomes wrong for
him to shirk this responsibility.
Only a few years ago many diseases had no known cure; in the intervening years
cures or effective treatments for some of them have been discovered. Confronted
with an incurable disease fifty years ago, a doctor told the
relatives that there
was nothing further that could humanly be done; the ill person was now in the
hands of God who could heal him if he willed. If the ill person recovered, his
relatives thanked God who had healed him. Today if a doctor is confronted with
the same disease for which a treatment is now known, it would be wrong for him
to withhold the treatment and tell the relatives that only prayer
could meet the
patient's needs. He must instead administer the treatment. If the
relatives have
been thinking in terms of a God-of-the-gaps, they will now thank the doctor and
forget about God completely; if they have not been trapped by this
fallacy, they
will thank the doctor and they will thank God for the wisdom and
skill of modern
medicine as manifestations of God's free activity in the modern
world. The point
is that under present conditions a decision had to be made by one or
more persons,
the doctor and the relatives, to take an action which previously they
would have
considered wholly within the province of God alone. To one thinking in the framework of
a God-of-the-gaps,
evidence for God used to exist in the fact that only God could heal a
person from
pneumonia-it was beyond the scope of contemporary medicine. But then penicillin
and antibiotics were discovered and medicine rose to the occasion. The need for
God apparently disappeared! Now this same approach continues to argue
for evidence
for God in the fact that only God can heal a person from cancer. It
is a never-ending
and self-restricting perspective that forces God to be squeezed out
of the center
of life.
If the concept of the God-of-the-gaps was insufficient and in fact destructive
of effective Christian witness in the case of the physical and the biological,
could it be expected to be any less insufficient and destructive in the case of
the religious?
The example of medical knowledge does not ordinarily cause many problems for Christians. We accept the fact that
medical knowledge
should be used to cure illness. Actually this acceptance is deeply
rooted in the
biblical doctrine of Creation, with its teaching about the intrinsic goodness
of the created universe and of the existence of suffering as an aberration on
this universe because of the effects of sin. One without this
worldview can easily
be trapped in the dilemma of wondering whether it is God's will to
combat suffering
in this world; if all is in God's hands, then suffering also must
come from God,
and to fight against suffering is to fight against God. This is the
problem raised
by Camus in The Piagsie.° Should one fight against the plague, and hence be
guilty of fighting against God, or should one submit to the plague as from God,
and hence be guilty of allowing fellow men to die? Only the biblical
perspective
is competent to deal with this problem unambiguously. Even if the suffering can
properly he viewed as judgment from God, it nevertheless is always
true that the
proper role for a Christian is to work to alleviate suffering; the
suffering itself
does not come from God but is a manifestation of the separation
between the world
and God because of sin.
In many other analogous areas of man's increasing knowledge and
ability, the acceptance
of this principle has not been so easily gained as in the field of medicine. A
whole host of questions must now be faced by man, whereas previously he could
simply leave them either alone or in the hands of God. Ramm7
summarizes a number
of such problems as they are related to genetic engineering, the definition of
death, and the electrical, chemical and surgical alteration of man's behavior.
To these may be added the problems associated with birth control, abortion and
population limitation, euthanasia, environmental control and
preservation, genetic
research, heightened possibilities for psychological and sociological
manipulation
of persons, artificial insemination and organ transplants. As an other example, the essential absence of a political Christian
perspective in the
New Testament church can be attributed to the lack of direct responsibility of
the early Christians for the political system under which they lived; contrast
the potential responsibility of a citizen living in a democratic form
of government
which purports to represent him directly.
It is in this kind of framework that we can understand Bonhoeffer's discussion
of "man come of age."
The movement that began about the 13th century towards the autonomy of man (in
which I should include the discovery of the laws by which the world lives and
deals with itself in science, social and political matters, art,
ethics, and religion)
has in our time reached an undoubted completion. Man has learnt to
deal with himself
in all questions of importance without recourse to the "working
hypothesis"
called God.8
How then, shall we respond to this state of affairs? Shall we accept them and
continue to emphasize the reality of God at the center of life to a "world
come of age," or shall we instead attempt to recover the
previous dependence
of man upon the "God-hypothesis" by denying his
"coming of age"
and seeking to restore the secret places where God can continue to
reign without
challenge? Bonhoeffer argues that the common practice in Christian apologetics
has too often been the latter. And since it is no longer possible to uphold the
God-of-the-gaps in the physical and biological realms, the effort is
all the more
intense to find him in the ultimate questions of guilt and death-for
which surely
only such a God has the answer. But, says Bonhoeffer, just think, "What if
one day they no longer exist as such, if they too can be answered
'without God'?9
Here Bonhneffer seems, to be really borrowing unnecessary troubles.
Is it possible
that the problems of guilt and death can be dealt with successfully
without invoking
the supernatural activity of God at the critical point? To avoid the apparent
extremism of Bonhoeffer's overstatement, we need to distinguish
between the ultimate
guilt between man and God, with which only God can deal and has dealt in Jesus
Christ, and the many manifestations of guilt, with which man may be expected to
be able to deal increasingly. It is of these latter manifestations
that we believe
Bonhoeffer speaks here. A consideration of the interaction between scientific
advances and Christian theology has led Hamm to speak in terms very similar to
those of Bonhoeffer.
What does it mean to live without the God-of-the-gaps fallacy and without the "Godhypothesis"? ... We do not use the possibility of God's activity without us to serve as an excuse or a stopgap for our own ignorance or apathy.
In the light of development in behavioral sciences and psychiatry we
need to take
a second look at our doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Put in simplest and most direct terms, many
of the things
we now claim only the Holy Spirit can do with man supernaturally, man will do
for himself. We see no ceiling to the control, shaping and modulation of human
behavior in the future.10
Ramm argues that we must think through in the light of possible
developments what
it means to speak of the immanence of the Holy Spirit in every dimension of the
universe. While maintaining clearly the uniqueness and discontinuity
of the work
of the Holy Spirit in the appropriate context, we must also be
careful to maintain
the continuity of the work of the Holy Spirit with the natural
mechanisms of man's
growing technological control over the world. Drugs and psychological treatment
become the gift of God when they are used to heal and to restore the whole man
as a unique human being; the same chemicals and methods can also become demonic
when they are used to produce a creature who is less than human.
Etsi Deus Non Daretur
What does it mean to live without the God-of-the-gaps fallacy and
without the "God-hypothesis"?
It means that we must live fully responsible for the course of events
in the world.
While we in no sense deny the possibility of God's activity in either
the physical
or religious realm without us (and indeed even trust for this
activity to produce
the ultimate deliverance), we do not use this possibility ever to serve as an
excuse or a stopgap for our own ignorance or apathy. And so we are
led to appreciate
the meaning of one of Bonhoeffor's more paradoxical statements.
We cannot be honest unless we recognize that we have to live in the world etsi
deua non daretur. And this is just what we du recognize-before God! God himself
compels us to recognize it. So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition
of our situation before Gnd.11
We must live in a way that is valid "even if there were no God," but
we must live in this waybefore God! Bonhoeffer does not call us to
repudiate God;
God is not dead. He calls us to recognize that we are fully
responsible for what
goes on in our lives and in our world, not attempting to push off
onto God those
responsibilities which formerly were not ours but now are.
The God who lets us live in the world without making the working hypothesis of
God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with
God we live
without God.12
We do not arrive at Christian living by separating ourselves from the
world, but
rather by living fully in all of "life's duties, problems, successes and
failures, experiences and perplexities "13 By giving ourselves
wholeheartedly
and responsibly to the fulfillment of those tasks in which we find ourselves,
we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God. We experience God
in the totality
of life, and not simply in the peripheral regions of mystical religiosity or as
the answer in our moments of distress.
Summary
In other days it was possible to sustain a religious interpretation
of the physical
and biological mechanisms of the world, i.e., to look directly to God as the
immediate
Cause of those physical and biological events which man was
unable to describe
or understand. In the historical context of growing
physical and biological
scientific description of the world, this religious interpretation became a concern with a
God-of-the-gaps, whose existence
could be demonstrated by man's ignorance of certain key physical and biological
mechanisms, The consequence was that evidence for God decreased as
man's scientific
knowledge grew. Today we do not attempt to sustain such a religious
interpretation
of the physical and biological worlds. We appreciate the fact that
what has happened
is that God, through permitting increasing scientific knowledge, has
allowed himself
to be removed from the direct physical and biological context of
scientific description.
We no longer look for a scientific hypothesis based upon God
as the secret mechanism; rather we recognize God as the very foundation for all
existence. We do our physics and our biology without God-before God! The first
part of that statement describes our scientific description; the
second part our
Christian responsibility.
Bonhoeffer challenges us to consider the validity of pressing this
growing relationship
one step further. What will happen (has happened?) if this same kind
of continuing
process applies not only to the physical and biological, but to the
moral, ethical
and religious as well? He concludes that a God-of-the-gaps position is no more
tolerable here than it has been in the physical and biological
spheres. Our relationship
to God in Christ must be such that he is able to claim for himself,
not just our
weakness and our failure, but also our strength and our success. We
must be prepared
to live the whole of life with God at the center, not only on the peripheries.
We must be prepared for psychological and sociological descriptions
of religious
phenomena; such descriptions will be significant and useful, but they will no
more exclude a theological interpretation than a physical description does, God
is the very foundation for all of life and its meaning; we need not
seek to preserve
secret places within the natural categories where his existence can be verified
and defended. God is free to act as he will; sometimes we may
describe this action
in supernatural terms, but most often we will describe it in natural terms. We
are not free to use the possibility of God's supernatural activity to excuse us
from acting as participants in his natural activity.
NOTES
1Letters and Papers
from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, E. Bethge, Ed., The Macmillan
Co., N.Y. (1968)
2LPP, p. 164
3M. A. Jeeves, The Scientific Enterprise and Christian
Faith, Tyndale
(London) (1969), p. 103.
4LPP, p. 142
5LPP, p. 183
6Albert Camos, The Plague,
Modern Library, N.Y. (1948) 79.
7Ramm, "Evangelical Theology and
Technological
Shock," Journal AM 23, 52 (1971)
8LPP, pp. 167, 168. We may
indeed feel that
Bonhoeffer has fallen victim to the common fallacy that our own period of world
history is unique. Certainly the completeness of man's knowledge as set forth
here must he considered an unwarranted exaggeration. Yet I believe we can learn
from it within the confines of its appropriate application.
9LPP, pp. 168, 169 169
10Ramm, "Evangelical Theology and Technological Shock,"
Journal ASA
23, 52 (1971)
11 LPP, p.158
12Ibid.
13LPPp, P.193
We no longer look for a scientific hypothesis based upon God as the secret mechanism; rather we recognize God as the very foundation of all existence.
Topics for Discussion
1. Should a citizen under a democratic form of government
vote for a candidate only if he is almost completely in
agreement with him on many issues? If voting in an election is often making a
choice for the lesser of two evils, can one avoid choosing-or is a failure to
make a choice already in itself a choice favoring the candidate who wins? Give
other examples where failure to deliberately act out of choice is
already a choice
for which we should be held responsible.
2. Philosophical evolutionists often argue that man has continually
become better
morally with the passage of time. What evidence do you find for or against this
argument? Is man morally "better" than the animals? Does
this question
make sense?
3. Discriminate between what is meant by saying that events which
normally occur
in the world have a natural (a) description, (b) explanation, and (c)
interpretation.
Repeat, replacing the word "natural" by "supernatural."
4. Do origins of life and spirit require a God-of-the-gaps? Is there
some reason
why such origins cannot he described in terms of natural processes?
5. How could Bonhoeffer believe firmly in the value of prayer,
I am so sure of God's guiding hand that I hope I shall always be kept in that
certainty . . . . My past life is brim-full of God's goodness, and my sins are
covered by the forgiving love of Christ crucified.
May God take care of you and all of us, and grant us the joy of meeting again
soon. I am praying for you every day. (LPP, pp. 208, 209)
the providential activity of God, the working out of the will of God
in the world-and
still argue that we must live in a way that is valid "even if there were
not God"? Is there a clue in his use of the prepositions, "before God
and with God" as opposed to regarding Cod as one called in as a
stopgap only
in matters of emergency?
6. It is reputed that when Napoleon asked the scientist Laplace why he had not
mentioned God in his hook on astronomy, Laplace replied, "I had no need of
that hypothesis." Can you tell from this exchange whether Laplace was an
atheist or not?
7. Can you think of any situation where I would be justified to know
how to help
alleviate someone's suffering and not to do it? Am I not responsible
then to encourage
both a personal and social increase in such knowledge as well? Does it follow
from such responsibility that any course of research is justified as
long as the
ultimate goal is the alleviation of human suffering?
8. Suppose it were known that an aggressive dangerous person could be
transformed
into a socially helpful and responsible person through the use of certain drug
therapy. Would you be in favor of its use upon the request of his
family and doctor?
How about the use of certain brain surgery techniques? Do you think that such
a possibility is ruled out by the very nature of the world, or do you think it
a viable possibility? Would this he a case of "man come of
age" acting
out of mature responsibility for the world, or a case of man seeking autonomy
in rebellion against God? Need it be only one or the other?
9.
A question for Christians: Suppose you could make a rebellious rejecter of God
open to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the administering of a certain
drug. Would
you use the drug . , . openly? , . , secretly to help him? Instead of a drug,
would you use psychological conditioning to make a rebellious rejecter of God
open to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Isn't this what happens at huge
evangelistic
rallies?
10. In view of Bonhoeffer's concept of "religion" and of a
God-of-the-gaps, speculate (if you have not read Letters
and Papers from Prison) how this leads him to the controversial topic
of "religionless
Christianity." Can you guess what he might have meant by this provocative
term?
11. If "man come of age" means that man is responsible before God for
what he does, has there ever been a time when man has not been of age in many
aspects of life?
OTHER READINGS
D. Alexander, Beyond Science, Holman (1973)
L. Augenstein, Come Let Us Play God, Harper and Row (1969)
H. F. Beck, The Christian Encounters the Age of Technology,
Concardia (1970)
S. D. Beck, Modern Science and Christian Life, Augsburg (1970)
D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics, E. Bethge, Ed., Macmillan (1961); Letters and Papers from Prison, E.
Bethge, Ed., Macmillan (1968)
R. H. Bube, The Human Quest: A New Look at Science and
Christian Faith, Ward (1971) "Man Come of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response to the God-of-the-Gaps," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 14, 203 (1971)
"The Failure of the God-of-the-Gaps," in Horizons of
Science, C. F. H. Henry, ad., Harper & Row, N.Y. (1978)
E. L. Mascall, The Secularization of Christianity, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston
(1965)
W. C. Pollard, Man on a Spaceship, Claremont Colleges (1967)
A. N. Triton, Whose World? InterVarsity Press (1970)
K. Vaox, Subduing the Casinos: Cybernetics and Man's Future,
John Knox (1970)
G. D. Yarnold, The Spiritual Crisis of the Scientific Age, Macmillan (1959)