Science in Christian Perspective
Biblical Mandates and the Human Condition
Kenneth A. Martin
Chemistry Department
Gordon College
Wenham MA 01984
From: JASA 32 (June1980): 74-77.
In the preceding article, William Pollard offers a theological justification of
nuclear power. Although the perspective is sotnewhat unique, the basic approach
is similar to that taken by most proponents of this energy source. First, the
choice to "go nuclear" is presented in grave terms (e.g.,
Alvin Weinberg's
Faustian bargain). Here, Pollard describes it as "of such
ultimate magnitude"
as to involve "the whole earth and all its creatures." The
general argument
then proceeds to assert that in reality there is no choice. The nuclear option
is portrayed as the only real option available. Even if serious drawbacks are
acknowledged by these advocates, they are said to he overshadowed by the lack
of other feasible ways to satisfy our nation's voracious energy appetite. The
choice is frequently reduced to one of nuclear power or "freezing in the
dark." Pollard's arguments are typical in this regard.
Ignoring all alternatives to the nuclear society, he asserts that the breeder
reactor is our destiny and the sooner it is accepted, the better life will he
for its all.
Specifically the author suggests the following points in defense of
nuclear energy:
(1) lIe maintains that nuclear power and radioactive substances are
not inherently
or irredeemably evil as sonic allege. Instead, ha argues that they are commonly
occurring in the universe and thus should not be viewed as man-made
or unnatural. (2) He then speaks of
God's providence.
During the past 35 years, the United States has been accumulating radioactive
tailings from both nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel fabrication.
Suitable as breeder fuel!, Pollard implies that the existence of these tailings represents
God's provision
for our energy future. (3) He asserts that we already suffer the full curse of
nuclear technology (weapons) and consequently would be foolish to now turn away
from the blessing (electric power generation). Pollard apparently
sees no additional
threat to world peace in the development and deployment of the breeder reactor.
(4) Finally, he suggests that since the breeder has a "predestined"
role to play in the energy future, it would be wise to gratefully accept this
technology as soon as possible. Some, he says, have always feared technological
advance, but such irrational fears should not be allowed to block the road to
progress.
Conspicuously absent from Pollard's theological view is a discussion of human
fallibility and sinfulness. Neither does he acknowledge the
Christian's responsibility
to look beyond the criteria of technological capability and circumstance to the
requirements of justice and love in fashioning a response to the
energy question.
Both of these points however are crucial to any Christian view of
energy technologies.
What follows is a more detailed discussion of each of the preceding points.
Nuclear Energy: Natural or Unnatural?
Pollard assigns nuclear energy a major role in his theory of creation, but this
assumption is apparently open to dispute. In fact, Victor F. Weisskopf, a nuclear
physicist and bead of the physics department at M.I.T. has recently
written:
...W e may forget about fission if we are interested only in the major features
of our world. This is even more true about the chain reaction itself.
Nature has
not made much use of it. Recent evidence indicates that a natural
chain reaction
happened a billion years ago below the soil of Africa but to our knowledge it
never played any role in the development of our universe1
Important or incidental to the mechanism of creation, nuclear
reactions and radioactive
substances unquestionably exist, It would be a mistake to view these
or any other
part of the created universe as inherently evil. But nucldar
reactions are predominantly
extraterrestrial phenomena and as such are generally inappropriate in
the earthly
setting. Nuclear dynamics may he "natural" to a system as
broadly defined
as the universe, but they are dormant on earth and as such are
"unnatural"
in this environment. Likewise, plutonium may be naturally occurring
in some distant
corner of the galaxy but in our environment this element is a deadly man-made
toxin, completely incompatible with life. God may have created billions or even
trillions of stellar nuclear power plants, but in His infinite
wisdom, he placed
them well out of human reach.
Nuclear Energy and Providence
There is great risk in depending too heavily on circumstances for
God's leading.
It is theologically naive to assert that the breeder is God's energy provision
for the future simply because the United States has accumulated
20,000 drums of radioactive tailings for which there is currently no acceptable
means of disposal. If we are to be guided by providence, might it not be more
reasonable to look to the truly renewable energy sources (solar, wind, water,
biomass etc.) with which God daily supplies the planet? They are certainly less
susceptible to human malevolence and have been available for
considerably longer
than 35 years. Henry A. Bent describes God's energy provision an follows:
Had roan managed to make a mammoth nuclear reactor sited safely 93
million miles
away, discovered how to store its radiant energy in a multitude of attractive
forms, learned how to release that energy metabolically, and managed
to keep the
whole process going for millions, perhaps billions of years, he would
be so pleased
with his handiwork he might not seek dangerous, less attractive ways
of providing power.2
Biblical norms and not providence are to be the Christian's ultimate guide. We
are called of God to be members of a global community and charged
with the responsibility
of caring for the creation. Accordingly, Vernon Elilers has stated:
As redeemed humans we have a responsibility to work toward a just allocation of
all resources, including energy resources.3
The divine design of the ecosphere embodies a marvelous and intricate pattern
0f natural processes and cycles. Our use of energy should seek, as
much as possible
to learn from this university of
nature" so that we develop patterns of resource development and use which
avoid disruption of the ecosphere.4
It is not enough to say that electricity should be generated by
breeder reactors
simply because it might he possible to do so. Christians must look
beyond technological
feasibility in their evaluation of potential energy sources. The solutions we
support must be those that protect human freedom and dignity, promote peace and
are consistent with the call to stewardship.
For the Christian then, energy solutions must flow from biblical
mandates. Human
justice requires that energy sources suitable to both developed and developing
countries he pursued. The breeder reactor is not such a source. It is feasible
only in a centralized society with a sophisticated electrical
transmission network.
Nuclear technology is complex, capital intensive and requires a small, highly
trained work force, one difficult to assemble even in a highly
developed society.
(Consider the report of the Kemeny Commission). Exporting this
technology to developing
nations tends to exacerbate their problems. It increases their
dependence on foreign
energy companies, foreign banks and foreign governments. It
compounds employment
problems and generally widens the gap between the rich and the poor,
the powerful, and
the powerless within the country. Energy sources adaptable to
small-scale, decentralized
application are more appropriate to give people the ability to determine their
own destiny. The United States is in a particularly important
position to develop
such technologies. To endorse breeder commercialization and thereby de-emphasize
or ignore soft-path technologies is to show serious disregard for global needs.
Christians are called to resist such self-centered behavior.
Stewardship of the earth is another biblical mandate. Every increase in energy
use has a negative impact on the environment (increasing air, water and thermal
pollution, carbon dioxide buildup and radiation exposure).
Elimination of energy
waste must then take precedence over expansion of energy supply. Extravagant,
inefficient and
foolish uses must be opposed. The answers to many of today's problems lie in a
philosophy of "enoughness" and in harmonious collaboration
with nature
in selective control based on ecological understanding and the
stewardship ethic.
Christians should increasingly turn their attention to the responsibilities of
these and other such biblical callings in formulating responses to social and
political policies that are based solely on pragmatism and expedience.
Nuclear Energy: The Blessing and The Curse
There are many risks associated with breeder technology that Pollard fails to
discuss. Principal among these are the concerns of nuclear weapons
proliferation
and the implications of what might be called the "human factor." Both
have theological antecedents. Critics charge that breeder development
and deployment
will increase the threat of nuclear war. If this is true, Christians, who are
called by God to be peacemakers, have a moral and spiritual
obligation to resist
the spread of this technology. It makes little sense to try to secure a better
life by using a form of energy that increases the threat of self-destruction.
Furthermore, since human fallibility and sinfulness are foundational tenets of
the Christian faith, believers should he extremely wary of any technology that
can so magnify the error or sin of one person as to affect tens or
even hundreds
of thousands of people.
Proliferation: Nuclear power is historically linked to nuclear weapons and this
relationship has figured decisively in its development. The following capsule
history was offered by Hannes Alfven, Nobel laureate in physics as
part of a lecture
given at the 1978 Nobel Symposium on "Ethics for Science Policy."
At the time of the Manhattan Project scientists generally believed that all new
discoveries would benefit mankind. The had conscience which many
Manhattan scientists
had as a result of making the nuclear bomb compelled them to believe
that enormous
benefits of "peaceful" nuclear energy would compensate for the terror
of nuclear arnss. With this rather naive excuse the Atoms for Peace
projects got
enthusiastic support from the nuclear physicists who rightly had the
reputation
for being the brightest and most influential scientists of that era.
Mans governments reacted favorably to the pressure of the scientists, probably
because the "peaceful" use of nuclear energy gave them an excellent
opportunity to keep the military option open and still officially do
nothing but
sponsor an extremely fascinating commercial project. The cost of nuclear energy
was not important-it seldom is for military or quasi-military
projectsbut to make
it appear commercially attractive it was claimed to be cheap.
The development of nuclear energy proceeded successfully arid almost
undisturbed
for a quarter of a century. Then a few biological and medical scientists blew
the whistle, claiming that its environmental impact was unacceptable.
The nuclear
establishment immediately realized how dangerous this criticism was and tried
to suppress it. How the controversy has escalated during the last ten years is
well-known.
The nuclear industry, supported by most nuclear physicists (right or wrong, my
science!), claims that no realistic alternatives exist; the environmentalists
clams that nuclear energy is dangerous and that there are several
more attractive
alternatives which in reality are cheaper.
Especially important is the connection between the spread of unclear technology
and the proliferation of nuclear arms. As we
have noted, 25 or 35 years ago governments in some industrialized
countries invested
heavily in "peaceful" nuclear energy mainly because they
wanted to keep
the atomic bomb option open. The same is done today in several
developing countries.1
President Carter's recognition of the increased risk of nuclear
weapons proliferation
from breeder deployment has prompted hint to call for a halt to
nuclear fuel reprocessing
and breeder reactor development. Henry Rowen of Stanford University and Albert
Wohlstetter of the University of Chicago, both prominent academic specialists
on nonproliferation issues, in 1979 completed a study commissioned
by the Department
of Energy and other governmental agencies "The Rowen-Wohlstetter
study asserts
that, over the last three years, all the legs to the argument that
the connection
between the fuel cycle and proliferation is slight have been cut off, including
the idea that the plutonium from a power reactor is denatured to the point that
it cannot he used reliably as a weapon."' In fact, last year the
United States
government declassified a report that it had exploded a Hiroshima-size nuclear
weapon made from reactor grade plutonium, a feat the breeder
proponents have previously
claimed to be impossible. It is becoming increasingly clear that the export of
nuclear power technology (particularly breeders) is tantamount to the export of
nuclear weapons technology. Support for this policy then represents
not only tacit
acceptance of the normalcy of nuclear weapons, hot also the
willingness to broaden
and expand this awesome threat. The world has not yet seen the full
curse of this
technology.
Human Fallibility: The nuclear industry expresses great confidence in
their complex
and highly developed systems and safeguards. It is not enough however, for these
systems to work in a technological paradise; they must also work in
the real world.
And nothing is so unsettling about real world operation as the human
factor. Human
ecologist Garrett Hardin of the University of California, Santa
Barbara has described
it this way:
A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Systems theory and sophisticated
technical devices can improve the nonluiman link in the chain leading to atomic
energy. But what can he done about the human link? Very little, I submit. This
is why Weinberg called for a "priesthoodsomething far more reliable, far
more devoted than ordinary human beings-something there seems little
possibility
of creating in this agnostic age. "It wishes were horses,
beggars would ride."
If caretakers were priests atomic energy would be safe.7
Proponents of nuclear power frequently fail to take seriously the
human condition.
Many appear to believe instead that upward mobility in technology is matched by
upward mobility in moral and ethical matters as well. But there is no
technological
solution to the problem of human malevolence. Any realistic estimate of human
nature which recognizes humanity's technical and moral fallibility
must conclude
that nuclear technology represents a grave risk to our world.
Nuclear Energy and Fear:
Pollard seemingly would have us believe that nuclear energy is no
different than
any other human technology; that to fear its development and deployment is as
foolish as fearing fire or electricity or the locomotive. Nuclear
energy is however, quantitatively different from chemical energy as
Victor Weisskepf
points out:
Today physicists are dealing with cosmic processes The fission chain reaction
was one of the first of these cosmic processes which led to major technological
applications. Two hundred million electron volts per atom-20 million times more
than the most powerful chemical reaction-is cosmic and not ordinary fire. And
the first major application was a destructive one which ended World War II by
killing a quarter of a million people with two booths. It is not
surprising therefore
that people are fearful and bewildered, and have misgivings even in regard to
the more benign applications of nuclear energy.1
.Nuclear energy is not ordinary fire. It has magnified human potency
to the degree
that worldwide destruction is now possible. Dare we not fear such
power, particularly
in the hands of sinful beings? God never intended I lis people to be paralyzed
by fear. Indeed he wants to set its free from senseless superstition
and irrational
fear. Rational fear, on the other hand, has a very legitimate place
in God's design.
It is given to warn of danger and it is given to motivate us to action.
The public's growing apprehension of nuclear power is increasingly grounded in
reality. We have seen the power of the atomic bomb and are learning more about
the risks of radiation exposure. Terrorism is a reality in our society and we
realize the tremendous danger of nuclear proliferation. We have considered the
implications of perpetual storage of radioactive waste and at Three Mile Island
we came to the brink of a major reactor accident. Most importantly, we know the
resources human beings bring to the task of managing the atom.
Contrary to Pollard's
assertion, it is not irrational fear we are being asked to pot aside hot sound
judgment.
God has given us dominion over the earth but included in that dominion is the
responsibility to make moral and spiritual choices concerning how we
use our knowledge
and to what ends. For humans to ignore their moral limitations is to
set themselves
up as gods. And to refuse to make moral judgments is to deny responsibility in
dominion. We must not let our technological capacities make our decisions. May
we always add wisdom to our knowledge.
REFERENCES
1Victor F. Veisskopf, "A Peril and a Hope," Physics
Today,
July 1978.
2Henry A. Bent, Chemistry, vol. 51 no. 4, May 1978.
3Vernon J. Ehlers, "Soft Energy and Hard Facts-Twenty
Theses," 33rd
Annual Meeting, American Scientific Affiliation, August, 1978.
4Same as reference 3.
5Hammes Alfven, "Science, Prowess and Destruction,"
Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, pp. 68-71, March 1979.
6Luther J. Carter, "Relaxation Seen in Nonproliferation
Policy," Science,
vol. 206, pp. 32-36, October 5, 1979.
7Garrett Hardin, "Living with the Faustian Bargain,"
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, pp. 25-29, November 1976.