Science in Christian Perspective
Christianity and Medical Frontiers
CARL F. H. HENRY
Lecturer-at-Large
World
Vision International
Arlington, Virginia 22207
From: JASA 30 (September 1978): 97-103.
Utopian Outlooks
All utopian
outlooks have a curious similarity. Whether they approach the human predicament
in terms of scientism, communism or Consciousness III, they tend to assume that
the given order of things - if indeed they recognize an "established" order -
places no restrictive limits on human proposals to radically alter and master
man and society. They assign no governing role to God in the external sphere of
nature and history; they suppose that man's future is open to wholly new
possibilities; and they consider man himself free to chart the future of the
human species. Human nature is regarded as evolving and as open to a superman or
superrace (which Nietzsche mapped one way and the Nazis another). Man is
considered the Kingdom-maker and his condition is thought to be unflawed by
original sin.
When scientism shares this utopian mood, as for example in the
writings of the Cambridge anthropologist Edmund Leach, the empirical spirit
approaches nature and man on premises not unlike those with which revolutionary
theologians approach history. No divinely-given plan or purpose, no created
order or
structure, need get in the
way; the road to a promising future is that of dramatic surgery or revolutionary
change. More moderate and mediating alternatives are regarded as concessive and
reactionary. As in history so also in the laboratory, eschatological
transformation becomes a near-term ambition, and every next major breakthrough
hopefully holds millennial possibilities.
The Biblical View
I mention this
utopian mentality at the outset simply to bring the biblical view into early
focus. The Bible too holds out the prospect of a future of man open to radically
new possibilities. But it does so in the governing context not of human
ingenuity and power but rather in terms of divine redemption from sin and the
moral revival of man. God's new man, his new humanity, is conformed to the moral
image of Jesus Christ, and will be "cloned" at last in a resurrection body
beyond sin and death. In the biblical view God's revealed will and operative
providence in the creation define the limits of human freedom; without God, man
the creature would not and cannot be truly free, cannot be good, and in fact would not even
be.
To the obstacles that nature
erects to unlimited scientific manipulation God is in fact saying something both
about nature and about himself, even as he does in the restrictions that human
history imposes upon utopian revolutionaries and their millennial programs. The
scientist is constantly brought to terms with the given in nature. This is not
the case only when evolutionists discover that primates they consider to he as
closely related as the gorilla and man differ so much genetically that they
cannot crossbreed. It is the case also at other frontiers, frontiers that the
brilliant medical technology of our times is now bringing prominently into
view.
Conquest of Suffering and Death
A key test of the scientific spirit
is what modern man proposes to do with suffering and death. Contemporary medical
technology seems increasingly devoted to its human conquest. In the
Judeo-Christian view suffering and death, whatever may and ought to be clone to
relieve and postpone them, are part of the givenness of present human existence,
inevitabilities complicated by sin, yet retaining for the person of faith both
moral and spiritual lessons that contribute to the enrichment of life. Death is
not for the Christian either a finality to be accepted with aquiesence or a foe
that can he humanly destroyed; the only real dignity with which it can now he
faced stems from God's gift of grace. Death has become an enemy whose sting is
sin; only where grace wrests the moral victory from the foe does death become
the transition to a greater good.1
Modern technology seems increasingly
disposed to all-out war against suffering and dying as if these universal
experiences were a needless human concession to a malign or indifferent cosmic
order. It projects its assault upon them as if no limits exist to man's conquest
of these hostile powers. Even the surgeon or family physician is now tempted to
consider himself a failure if his patient dies. The secular modern is net ready
to accept death either intellectually, volitionally or emotionally, except as a
few stony intellectuals consider man to be a meaningless fragment of animated
dust with no more future than the beasts of the field. The modern perspective in
turn leaves secular man both unprepared to die and unprepared to live as he
ought, that is, fully aware of the implications of finite and sinful existence
and in view of the ministry of divine grace and the moral lessons that life
holds for the spiritual man.
Only in the biblical view can suffering be
purposive; in a non-Christian view it is only an enemy. In the biblical view the
Suffering Servant is indispensable to human redemption, and the suffering of the
righteous man is sanctified by his suffering, death and resurrection. To commit
one's self to the biblical understanding of life and death and of the world to
come carries for the secular spirit too high a price in the way of spiritual
decision. Hence he expects the medical practitioner to bestow not only the gift
of health and a welcome deliverance from affliction but something
hopefully more than what the Christian recognizes as at best only a
temporary delay of death. In this transferal of hope, death ceases also to he a
delay of what the New Testament declares to be not only "better" but
"far better" for the believer, that is, "to be with Christ" (Phil.
1:23).
The loss of spiritual frontiers in the modern probing of medical
frontiers therefore risks the tantalizing but misleading implication that
science holds potential for shaping a new creation. Finite man through a
misdirected hope meanwhile loses his share in the new creation that God offers,
and expects from his present state - for all that science can do to improve it
more than the limits of his being allow.
By no means, however, are these
reflections to be taken as a questioning of the profound usefulness of
scientific learning. Few people today would want to turn hack the clock on the
scientific revolution; even its counter-cultural critics today hitchhike on a
technological civilization while airing their grievances. Technology in some
respects is as ancient as civilization; without access to water, disposal of
sewage, and ready transportation, human communities soon wither. The widespread
relief of human suffering, the fostering of health and preservation of life, has
yielded worldwide benefits.
Yet the tentative nature of all scientific
hypotheses is becoming evident in ever costlier ways. The more sophisticated our
solutions, the more devastating is their destructive potential. Not only the
field of medicine, but all scientific endeavor, engages in a balancing of risks.
The scientific method is unable to identify finalities and absolutes; its role
is rather a gradual elimination of long-revered myths and the reduction of
inferior alternatives. When he openly acknowledges these limitations the
scientist is to be commended; if the theologian must say "now we know in part,"
much more must the empirically-dependent technician acknowledge the restrictions
his methodology imposes.
Isolation of Knowledge from Ethical Use
The
isolation of scientific knowledge, medical knowledge included, from the question
of its ethical use is a crucial concern for contemporary civilization. The
utility of science is primarily connected with human comfort and convenience,
and these often become synonyms in contemporary culture for human betterment.
The earlier vision of science as an instrument serviceable to the glory of God,
by its extension of his moral purposes in the world and by the social
implementation of the good, has faded away in recent generations. As secularism
encroaches upon modern life, fewer and fewer influential spokesmen press the
question: "What ought scientific knowledge to be used for?" Even the conviction
that the medical profession has its goal solely in the preservation of human
life is challenged. Abortion, euthanasia, and recombinant genetic research also
in frontier modes that anticipate a deliberately altered human species, frame
the role of medical science in a notably different way. The mere mention of such
modern developments as nuclear warfare and ecological pollution reflect the
correlation of scientific learning with technical advances that threaten human
survival itself. As ethical connotation terms are secularized, moreover,
concepts like "quality of life" are formulated in an amoral way; 44% of
Americans think life's quality has worsened in the past decade, according to a
Harris poll. What do they mean by quality of life? They point specially to air
and water pollution, energy costs, inferior product
serviceability and safety, in short, to predominantly physical concerns and
consequences, although a number do hold that a deterioration of education has
contributed also to the depreciation of life quality. Of no less importance is
the fact that the detachment of scientific utility from the question of moral
norms strips the scientist himself of any firm basis for relating his scientific
contribution to the good. Indeed, it leaves him without any firm basis for
defending the value of science itself.
Because the scientist uses a
restricted professional methodology, one that is ideally appropriate to
identifying certain empirically observed sequences, has he no responsibility for
distinguishing between moral and immoral uses of scientific knowledge? Anyone
familiar with American Association for the Advancement of Science conventions in
recent years, and with publications like Science magazine, cannot but he aware
that many scientists now raise ethical issues with a zeal seemingly intended to
compensate for long decades of neglect. l'his accelerating moral concern is to
he fully commended, even if its tardy pursuit tends to grapple with many issues
at the level only of mid-course correction.
Adam's eating of the Edenic tree
of knowledge without moral sanction and ethical commitment cost him spiritual
life. The temptation is now commonplace to devour the fruit of the tree of
knowledge in order to become like gods. But knowledge pursued in moral
alienation and indifferently to the good while it reaches for omniscience
invites demonic manipulation and deployment of what we know. Our generation has
passed beyond the end of the age of technological innocence, and antichrist
seems ever eager to snonopolize the results of scientific learning.
Because
the scientist is a man like other men, he like others is answerable to the
express will of Cod for his creation. That answerability extends to the purposes
for which the scientist seeks knowledge, and the rise for which he commends and
approves it.
I am not here arguing that it is better not to have knowledge
than to run the risk of its misuse. God himself does not conceal the revelation
of himself because humans may distort and revolt against spiritual knowledge. By
declaring all men to h sinners, the religion of the Bible emphasizes not only
that humans are ignorant of much that they can know about God, but that humans
in fact also possess revealed knowledge about God which rebellious man deploys.
If man is divinely made for the knowledge of Cod, he need not balk at knowledge
of God's universe. Ignorance may also he a sin, especially if one might have had
knowledge that could have been used serviceably to the good. If, however, that
knowledge is sought in rivalry with knowledge of God, or indifferently to God's
claim upon man and the cosmos, we have a very different situation. Nor is our
primary problem that of sharing scientific knowledge with developing countries
that might misuse it; if the developed countries will moralize the use of
knowledge, the developing countries will not be a major problem.
Knowledge
and Its Use
Against those who insist that "knowledge is good (period)" the
question needs to be pressed whether
The more sophisticated our solutions, the more devastating is their destructive potential.
we (-an
excusably draw an absolute line between knowledge and appropriation in this way.
We are here faced again with the crisis of Eden: we want to touch the tree of
knowledge quite indifferently to God's consent and purpose. To perpetuate a
divorce of scientific learning from the knowledge of the good is a costly
development, the more so as scientific learning multiplies and concern about the
good deteriorates. It may precipitate the destruction of the very civilization
and culture that some spokesmen for science had only a few generations ago hoped
to lift to the brink of utopia.
In this judgment I wish to avoid blaming
science for decisions that are taken individually by human beings and in which
nonscientists no less than scientists are involved. Yet the fact is that
scientific learning all too readily accommodates a game of roulette in which
moral questions are postponed until it is too late to moralize the choices. Call
one wholly escape culpability if lie operates an escort service that enables
one, in observing new frontiers, to walk so invitingly near the brink of
perilous enjoyment that hazardous participation becomes well-nigh
irresistible?
The breakup of the American home doubtless has many
contributory causes, and there is no reason to think that even apart from
certain recent scientific developments the society of the West might not have
notably declined through alternative ways of expressing its spiritual
vagahondage. But before the production of the birth control pill premarital
intercourse by almost a third of all teenage girls between 15 and 19 years of
age in the United States was unthinkable. The fact that many teenage mothers
now undergo abortions in the more risky second term of pregnancy, rather than in
the first term, indicates that other than prudential considerations control
their appropriation of modern technical information, and that scientific
techniques are welcomed because they accommodate sexual permissiveness hopefully
with impunity. We have felt only the first shock wave of social upheaval in a
society that postpones moral judgment to a sunset interaction and gives to the
questions "Is it physically safe?" or "Is it useful?" a priority over the
question "Is it good?" When Jesus said "Ye shall know the truth and the truth
shall make you free" (John 8:32) he did not mean "free of an unwanted fetus" or
free of ethical answerability.
Nor an I saying that the Christian theologian
has undiluted advance wisdom about ever'v decision to he made in the application
of scientific possibilities. The Bible does not give us quick answers to all
questions. But it does provide clear divine information about some matters. It
insistently raises the question of why we propose to do what we do. Over all
that humans think and do it inscribes the words what for? It nowhere encourages
us to postpone the moralizing of our interests while we touch the tree of
knowledge inquisitively. The Bible does not speak directly concerning some
proposals, yet it is not therefore without relevantly applicable principles. It
strips away any justification for human decision solely oil tile basis of
pragmatic considerations. The Bible rejects human
fear and pride as adequate motivations and declares the fear of God to be the
beginning of wisdom in every human enterprise.
Atomic Power
The moral
question confronts us with special urgency iii respect to recombinant genetic
research even as it has already confronted us in respect to atomic power. It is
beyond the capacity of human wisdom to calculate and balance potential benefits
and liabilities in these developments. The Bible underwrites no rationale for
producing the atomic bomb because Nazi scientists might otherwise achieve it
first, or for pursuing recombinant genetic research because Soviet scientists
might beat us to a breakthrough.
Not simply by concentrating on physical
consequences while minimizing questions of ethical appropriation, but also by
reading its experimental verdicts in a maximally optimistic way scientism
betrays its fascination with gnosis. The crisis in atomic energy today mirrors
the terrible dilemma of a generation that detaches moral imperatives from its
investigative genius.
Atomic fission was heralded as carrying the prospect of
an end to war and the promise of a new age of inexpensive energy. The outcome
has been very different. And many now ask whether scientists who hailed their
creation of the bomb as signaling the dawn of a luminous atomic age should not
have known and said also that there is no known way to handle atomic waste.
Touching this branch of the tree of knowledge has thrust us into an age in which
atomic waste can be reprocessed into destructive nuclear bombs; and it has not
significantly carried us forward toward a solution of the global energy crisis.
If two things are to be added about the French government's recent announcement
of the discovery of a new way to enrich uranium for power plants that eliminates
the risk that the material could he used for nuclear weapons, the second is
that, even if the process proves practical, it will also prove to have
unforeseen side-effects.
Recombinant DNA Research
Can we presume that
technological genius operating neutrally in a context of moral ambiguity and
spiritual revolt decisively advances civilization? The problem now
begins to face us urgently in the sphere of genetic experimentation, where all
the motivations that underlay atomic experimentation are once again asserted.
Some social critics affirm that recombinant genetic engineering could create
more affliction than it relieves, that it may fashion a monster that will
destroy us all; others claim it could cure cancer and other crippling diseases
and lift the human species to new potentialities.
Recombinant genetic
research cannot as such be considered an intrusion into nature, since the
principles of mutation and species variation are already operative throughout
the plant and animal kingdom. Yet the range of genetic exchange among living
forms in most instances are very narrow. While the genetic code is universal,
nature significantly restricts the exchange of genetic information between
widely divergent species so that, heretofore at least, it has not been possible
to cross major species harrier.
With the advent in the 1970s of recombinant
molecular technology, however, geneticists engaged in the further manipulation
of life. The test tube recombination of DNA molecules from organisms that do not
usually exchange genetic information creates a new situation, one that is
stirring wide debate over the
Atomic fission was heralded as carrying the prospect of an end to war and the promise of a new age of inexpensive energy. The outcome has been very different.
ethics of genetic
engineering, over the safety of such experimentation, and over the regulation
and legislation appropriate to such research.
Yet the recombinations
presently described have also already in principle occurred in nature, in the
phenomenon of so-called "jumping genes" or transpositions of fragments of DNA
from one organism to another. In 1974 the microbe that produces meningitis in
infants acquired from an unknown source a plasmid carrying the gene that resists
the antibiotic ampicillin. In 1976 it was noted that the organism responsible
for gonorrhea acquired a plasmid also encoding for resistance to asnpieillin.
More recently plasmids have been recognized in streptococci, the organism
productive of "strep sore throat," and this could hold profound
medical
Revealed religion offers technological civilization its only persuasive means for overcoming the isolation of knowledge from ethical applications.
significance, perhaps reverting us to the pre-antibiotic
era.
The dilemma now confronting us concerning the exchange of genetic
information transcending normal species barriers is that of adequacy of
containment and appropriateness of research. It should he noted that
medical
science has faced biohazards whenever it has investigated and treated
infectious diseases; precisely in the face of such risks, the polio vaccine and
other scientific advances were achieved. It may well he that criticisms of
genetic engineering and scenarios of disaster are greatly exaggerated. Yet
prudence calls for caution in the area of the unknown, and a few observations on
what presently seems to some of us to he the wisest course may at least provoke
counter-suggestion in the area where theologians and scientist alike must settle
for some political compromise.
Most of us are almost as reluctant to see
legislative controls oil freedom of scientific research as we are on freedom of
religion. The record of political omniscience is hardly more impressive than
pretensions of scientific omniscience. Where research has a therapeutic
objective, legislative controls should be avoided. Governmental licensing of
researchers would multiply bureaucracy and introduce possibilities of political
influence and intervention that a free society should resist. Guidelines issued
by the National Institute of Health to safeguard public life and health already
include both physical and biological containments that reduce biohazards from
recombinant genetics to a minimum, and should he extended to include all
recombinant molecular research regardless of the source of funding for such
projects. Such guidelines, moreover, should be periodically revised as new
information becomes available.
Scientists should be pressed to distinguish
experimentation that probes new forms of life from experimentation that is
ventured for therapeutic ends. Informed public debate should he invited on legal
controls touching the former type of experimentation, so risks will be minimized
by more stringent measures than the mere issuance of governmental guidelines.
Any legislation should however be reviewed from time to time so it will be
neither unnecessarily restrictive nor excessively tolerant.
We should
doubtless clearly distinguish experiments that amplify or increase genes in the
same organism, or in closely related organisms that naturally exchange genetic
information, from experiments that propose an exchange of genetic information
between unrelated bacteria and between more complex organisms with an organized
nucleus. The latter kinds of experiment involve hazards beyond the risks
attending current genetic procedures and should therefore be answerable to
legislative regulation. Such regulation should guarantee at very least the
existence of competent local review agencies. Whatever restrictions are placed
on innovative research need not at all completely thwart such
research, provided only that the sponsoring institutions are certified and held
publicly responsible, and the nature and limits of liability are
established.
Spiritual Reality
Legislative restriction or not, the
scientist is answerable to Cod no less than to society, and here the biblical
theologian pleads for conscious attention to that larger realm of spiritual
realities that escapes sense perception and turns on Cod-in-his-revelation. Yet
it is not to the scientist alone, but to contemporary man now widely given over
to radically secular perspectives, that this call must he directed. The people
doubtless have a right through the legislative process to set limits on the
proposals of scientists no less than on those of the rest of us in respect to
what they perceive to he life-and death issues. Yet even scientists who earnestly
raise the question of moral norms now find themselves dealing with large
remnants of society not deeply interested in these issues, so widely does the
dissociation of technical information from questions of morality pervade our
culture. All the more imperative, therefore, is the forging of an intellectual
front in which concerns of theology, ethics, science, and human history are once
again focused in a comprehensively unified way.
Revealed religion does not
directly answer questions that modern science addresses to the universe, but it
nonetheless bears on the whole of that inquiry. Moreover, it answers some
questions with finality (and that is more than empirical science can do), and it
has fully as much to say to our technological age - and of no less importance -
than does contemporary science.
Revealed religion can identify the good in
terms of God's expressly disclosed will and moral commandments which scientific
man neglects at great peril to himself and to all mankind, Revealed religion
identifies the chief end of life ("to glorify God and to enjoy him forever"); a
disregard of this imperative impoverishes human existence, and invites the
decline of civilization even amid illustrious scientific genius.
Revealed
religion proffers ethical renewal that renovates the fallen will of man to do
the right, instead of condemning 20th century mankind to its deadly nuclear arms
race in unending pursuit of superior retaliatory or destructive capability. It
invites our scientific age East and West to share the regenerative and
restorative grace of Cod that can subdue both the secular communist and secular
capitalist spirit to participation in the eternal world.
Revealed religion
offers ethical guidance precisely at those frontiers where medical technology
has been exploited in the service of moral permissiveness to the great detriment
of social stability. Some moral prescriptions are no more welcome than some
medical prescriptions. But they are not on that account misguided. The Bible
declares that intercourse before and outside of marriage is wrong in Cod's
sight, even if all the world should practice it and do so with gleeful delight.
Adultery within marriage is wrong even when it becomes the social norm, and even
if that should become the ease in the most powerful nation in the 'world, To
defend the weak and helpless is right, and to take fetal life is wrong (moral
exceptions being to spare the mother's life, offspring to victims of rape, and
instances of exceptional deformity.) Abortion is not a biblically sanctioned means of birth control, even if destruction of the
life of unwanted girl infants in ancient Rome or destruction of the life of
unwanted fetuses in modern America should become the social custom.
Revealed
religion offers technological civilization its only persuasive means for
overcoming the isolation of knowledge from ethical applications. Where
evangelical religion is forfeited moral relativism soon takes its place. The
Bible holds before us Jesus Christ the ideal man, neighbor love and social
justice as moral imperatives, and the extension of God's ethical purposes
throughout the cosmos as God's divinely-intended vocation for man. It promotes
the moral use of knowledge in the service of man under God, rather than
merely in the service of nature under mail, or in the service of some political
or scientific elite. The pursuit of knowledge in this context can do us no harm
but can do us only a world of good. For all the technological brilliance and
scientific innovativeness of our times, present-day civilization is doomed
without a decisive alteration of the prevalent secular philosophy of life and of
the norms of human behavior.
©1978
REFERENCE
1Paul Ramsey, "The Indignity of 'Death with
Dignity'," Hastings Center Studies 2, No. 2, pp. 47-62, May (1974)