Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/18/2009 12:54:55 PM PST by bdeaner
Not only do the findings of science have moral implications, the actual work of scientific research presupposes that the researcher himself is a man of virtue. When scientific research is divorced from, or worse opposed to, the life of virtue it is not simply the research or the researcher that suffers but the whole human family.
Take for example, the scandal surrounding the conduct of researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the UK. Whether or not the recently revealed emails and computer programs from undermine the theory of anthropological global warning (AGW), it is clear that current public policy debate is based at least in part on the research of scientists of questionable virtue who sacrificed not only honesty and fair play but potentially the well being of us all in the service of their own political agenda.
All of this came to mind recently when a friend sent me a talk on the environment (Through Creation to the Creator) by the Orthodox theologian Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Ware argues that all creation is "a symbol pointing beyond itself, a sacrament that embodies some deep secret at the heart of the universe." Unlike the Gnosticism that hold sways in many areas of life (including scientific research) the Christian Church argues that the secret of creation is both knowable and known. Creation, Ware says, points beyond itself to "the Second Person of the Trinity, the Wisdom and Providence of God" Who is Himself both "the source and end" of all created being. Insofar as the Christian tradition has an environmental teaching at all it is this: Jesus Christ is the "all-embracing and unifying" Principal of creation.
At its best natural science research is a means of exploring and deepening our appreciation and gratitude to God for "the variety and particularity of creation—what St Paul calls the ‘glory’ of each thing (1 Cor 15:41)." But appreciation and gratitude are not the fruit of technical competence but an ascetical effort. We must learn to "love the world for itself." According to Ware, we do this not simply for what the natural world can do for us but "in terms of its own consistency and integrity." And again, at its best scientific research has a positive role to play here. This is what makes Climategate so tragic; once again science is being twisted to serve selfish ends.
C.S. Lewis reminds us of the danger here when he observes that, "Each new power won by man is a power over man as well." While our scientific advances have made us stronger in some ways, they have made us weaker in others. While not without copious benefits, science represents a real and substantial risk for both our relationship to creation and to ourselves. Giving in, Lewis points out, means that we no longer seek to "conform the soul to reality" through "knowledge, self-discipline and virtue." As with magic in an earlier age, modern science tempts us to "subdue reality to the wishes of men."
Language such as that used by both Lewis and Ware use is foreign not only to scientific research but even most Christian scholarship outside of theology departments (and sometimes even there). Contemporary scientific researchers would have us imagine that they are able to bracket questions of personal virtue as they examine creation. Climategate demonstrates the folly of this.
To further their own agenda the CRU scientists imagined that they could manipulate not only the data but the peer review process as well. While both are unacceptable, the latter represents an assault on the human community. To borrow again from Lewis, it is an attempt by some to assert their will over others.
Metropolitan Kallistos reminds us the "ascent through the creation to the Creator is [not] easily accomplished, in a casual and automatic way." It requires not only the theological virtues of faith, hope and love but more ordinary moral and intellectual virtues such as "persistence, courage, imagination." While the cultivation of these and the other virtues will not guarantee success in research (or public policy for that matter), their absence will guarantee failure.
Likewise, a sacramental vision of creation will guarantee neither sound science nor virtuous scientists. But given the major social and political changes being proposed in the name of the environment, it seems to me that we would do well to reflect more deeply on not only the practical implications of public policy but our own motivations and the means we are willing to employ to reach our goals. As Climategate demonstrates, if only on a relatively small scale, we can perpetrate great injustice with even the noblest motives.
Ping
Natural Law, as your screename presupposes, “Virtue” can exist independent of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin in their heyday of skepticism always promoted virtues. You can be a “moral” scientist. A “moral” atheist even.
But morals cannot save your soul.
Virtues mean nothing to God. If they did, then all we would need are a set of values to follow and there’d be no point in Christ being crucified and resurrected.
The godly purpose of science is to further investigate and reveal the intricacies of God’s handiwork in His revealed Creation. The Bible claims to be the sole truth—containing facts of both temporal and eternal significance. While it is not a science textbook, it is scientifically accurate. God’s Word is the basis of all reality—and all we can do is work within God’s confines to discover as much as we can, using the (ultimately limited) intelligence He endows us with.
Okay before I go on and on and on...the POINT is: because this is a Christ-centered universe— SCIENCE is subservient to the Word of GOD — the Bible is never “subservient” or accountable to man’s flawed theories.
the article encourages a “sacramental vision of Creation.”
that should be “BIBLICAL understanding of Creation.”
I agree with Richard Dawkins’ criticism of the Vatican’s views on science:
“The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise paleontological juncture when the human SOUL was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology...Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it.”
Dawkins is right...there is NO room for “compromise.” Either evolution happened or it didn’t.
It didn’t.
You are including abiogenesis. All the Church says is that evolution is one of the scientifically explainable processes God used in creation. If you can't explain how God created you have no basis for concluding how God didn't create.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously remarked that the test of a first-rate mind is to hold two apparently contradictory ideas and still be able to function. In the debate over evolution, the Church allows both revelation and science their due authority, reconciling the apparent contradictions between Genesis and modern research. Catholics also have to be skeptical about the claims of materialist ideologies disguised as science, while being open to the genuine findings of geneticists and paleontologists. To paraphrase GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON:
"Catholics should welcome the genuine discoveries of modern science while casting a skeptical eye on evolutionary "science" that for philosophical reasons dispenses with a Creator and treats man as a thing. At the same time, Christians who insist on explaining the universe in terms of ancient Hebrew cosmology are going to have a difficult time engaging the modern world."
Where did evolution come into this? The article, if anything, rebukes our faith in man, our ‘secular priesthood’ of scientists.
Mockers cried “Aha, aha!” when actual priests were accused of sin, but are offended when scientists are questioned, as though the suggestion itself were sinful. Gee, that wouldn’t be anything at all like some Catholics’ reaction to recent scandals, no, not at all...
Our acceptance of an authority (say, a scientific theory, or a church) should be based on good reasoning and not the personalities involved, but we are only human, too. The ultimate point of the article seems to be that the end does not justify the means. That doesn’t seem too controversial.
Well said.
There is no way of knowing that the scientist's interpretation of the data is accurate or correct. Adjusting Scripture to fit man's ideas is folly.
The Bible says that God created man and animals from the dust of the earth, not from some other creatures. When He made Eve and used a different method, He clearly stated so and told us what the method was.
God left no ambiguity about where man came from and it wasn't from some apelike ancestor.
You can quote the pope all you want and it doesn't make HIM right either if he's teaching contrary to Scripture.
It shouldn't be. But it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.