Christian Living in an Age of Science (7)

We, who, in W. H. Auden’s words, live in societies “to which the study of that which can be weighed and measured is a consuming love,” have difficulty imagining an alternative to our approach to reality.
Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality

From early on men have been wary of science. Concern about the threat of science to human wellbeing has been popularized in such books as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, as well as in the films 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and Jurassic Park, among others. Such books and films reflect widespread concern about the power of science for bringing evil to the world, whether knowingly or not.

But concerns about “mad scientists” and a world taken over by the very technology we create in order to master and improve the world are hardly the extent of the threat of science. The real threat posed by the success of the scientific endeavor is more subtle and potentially more damaging.

In four ways the modern scientific enterprise threatens the wellbeing of society: the arrogance of knowing, the enhancing of human sin, the decline of morality, and the dehumanizing of man. The work of science does not automatically or necessarily give rise to these evils. However, in one way or another, they have all been present in the scientific enterprise, and are present still today. In this installment I want to examine each of these threats briefly.

The arrogance of science
The first of these, the arrogance of the scientific community, is a direct offshoot of its amazing success. With the success of science have come technological innovation, increased standards of living, and economic prosperity such as the world has never seen before – not to mention more private and government support for the work of science. And, with success and prosperity, a certain arrogance has crept into man’s view of himself and what he is able to do through science and technology. This is particularly evident in our day when certain groups are labeled as “anti-science”, meaning that they dare to oppose the hegemony of the scientific community when it comes to looming social issues.

We can observe this arrogance in public debates over the factuality of evolution, the legitimacy of stem-cell research and other bioethical projects, and the claims about climate change. For the most part, the secular scientific community has settled its opinions on each of these matters. Any who still believe the jury to be out on whether evolution presents a reliable cosmogony or cosmology, human embryos are legitimate objects of research, or humans are responsible for climate change – if indeed such change exists – are branded as “know-nothings” and worse.

The Scriptures warn against the arrogance that can attend to knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). The fact that, over the centuries, aspects of the scientific paradigm, once considered to be unshakeable, have been altered or revised significantly, should counsel more openness on the part of scientists to dialog with and persuade – or be persuaded by – those who disagree with their views.

Yet members of the scientific community can be quick to condemn positions which disagree with their own. This was seen in the denunciatory response of researchers and business interests to the recent decision of the European Court to deny patents for products of human stem-cell research. It can also be seen in the general harrumphing and pooh-poohing of the reports about neutrinos which might travel faster than the speed of light.

But mostly the arrogance of certain members of the scientific community is aimed at religious and political opponents who are not yet persuaded of the complete reliability of the standard secular science paradigm. Such arrogance shuts down dialog, divides societies, and unfairly condemns other potentially viable points of view. In the process, it also bolsters the public view of the authority of science at the expense of every other way of knowing.

Enhancing human sin
The second threat that science poses to society is in its ability to enhance mankind’s sinfulness. By himself, sinful man is plenty bad enough, as we see in numerous examples from everyday life. Add scientific know-how and technology on a society-wide scale, and you have the potential for a dramatic enhancement of man’s sinfulness. God Himself expressed concern over the way technology had enhanced humankind’s ability to offend against the divine order in the story of the Tower of Babel: “And the LORD said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them’” (Gen. 11:6)

In the middle of the twentieth century, Germany was the most scientifically advanced society in the world. The hubris of its leaders led them to exploit science and technology to the destruction of peoples and cultures on a scale never before seen. In the same way, the resources produced by science and technology, in the hands of terrorists, have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and the techniques of abortion have made the slaughter of millions of unborn infants a procedure as easy and as commonplace as filling a tooth.

The ability of science and technology to enhance man’s ability to sin against his fellow man is clear enough. What is needed are ways of ensuring that the scientific enterprise works within parameters and according to standards that can help to keep this threat from materializing.

Reinforcing lower moral standards
The third threat of modern science relates to morality. Once science and technology have begun to be used for questionably moral purposes, the effect can be to “standardize” what were previously regarded as immoral practices, thus lowering the bar of morality and, in the process, endangering the wellbeing of society.

For example, once politics made it possible for abortion to be legal, science made it possible for it to be relatively easy and inexpensive. Thus, sanctioned by the medical community and enhanced by new technologies, abortion became, for many Americans, an acceptable moral option in the face of an unwanted pregnancy. The effect of this has been – besides the slaughter of 60 million unborn children – to spur scientists on to discover new ways of making abortion easier – such as the so-called “night-after” pill – and thus to reinforce the idea of its acceptability by making it even more convenient and private.

Another way that science adversely affects morals is by its practice of quantification. For science to do its work, everything it chooses to study must be reduced to numbers in some way. Numbers can be observed, manipulated, altered, measured, and tallied. When the “numbers” of science combine with the “numbers” from economics, new products or procedures can be achieved which have as their only concern some variation of the bottom line. When these numbers work, all kinds of other concerns – moral concerns – can be conveniently overlooked, denied, or redefined: effects on the environment, harmful byproducts and side-effects, or long-term residual effects. Think: DDT, Love Canal, thalidomide, the tobacco industry. Once doing science by the numbers becomes the norm – in order to maximize efficiencies or returns on investment – other ethical and moral questions are either downplayed or ignored.

Dehumanization
The final threat of modern science is that of dehumanization. Many of our contemporaries have begun to be plagued by feelings of alienation, impersonalization, meaninglessness, and hopelessness. These feelings coincide interestingly with the rise of science and technology and the widespread materialism these endeavors fuel. Social science turns people into statistics. Science in general, with its emphasis on a naturalistic worldview, can deny the validity and vitality of meaningful spiritual experience, creating a social environment in which spirituality is merely an “option” at best, a crutch at worst.

At present, certain members of the neuroscientific community are even beginning to explain that human beings do not possess free will, are not ultimately responsible for their actions, and so must  be held accountable in different ways, not excluding repairing brains that may be regarded as not functioning properly for adequate socialization. The film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest captured the essence of this threat and brilliantly demonstrated the power of science to change human behavior in degrading and dehumanizing ways.

I do not mean to suggest that these threats are always present in the work of science, or that they are somehow inescapable. They are real, and they must be borne in mind by any society which has elevated science to the status of final arbiter of all things truthful.

Unless sufficient checks and balances are built into the work of science, the scientific community will have no reason not to continue pursuing everything it can think to do, regardless of the threat their work may present. And in such an unchecked and unbridled environment, the threats posed by the success of the scientific endeavor can most assuredly be expected to materialize and increase.

For reflection or discussion

1. Have you witnessed any of these “threats” which accompany the success of the scientific enterprise?
2. How much do you know about the ways science regulates its work? Do you know any scientists you might ask?
3. Reflect on the four threats of science: Do the Scriptures provide any counsel for beginning to construct a defense against these threats? Give some examples.
4. Suggest some ways that Christians might do a better job of keeping abreast of developments within the scientific community. Why would it be important that at least some of us are doing this?

I am grateful to Dr. Andrew Bobb for his help in pulling together the resources and contributing to the development of these studies. For more insight to this topic, get the book, Christianity and the Nature of Science, by J. P. Moreland, from our online store. You should also read the article, “Are Christians ‘Anti-Science’?” by Charles Colson.