On The Dialogue Between Science And Religion: Our Readers Respond

Editor's Note: A recent essay in The Scientist ("Science, Religion Must Share Quest For Global Survival," May 16, 1994, page 12) sounded a call on behalf of Planet Earth by Van Rensselaer Potter, Hilldale Professor of Oncology, emeritus, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In his essay, Potter praised what he considers to be unprecedented efforts by German theologian Hans Küng to forge, for the sake of humankind's survival, a creative and specifically targeted alliance between science and religion. Potter's recommendation that religious and scientific leaders move immediately to foster constructive bioethical dialogue that would yield such an alliance elicited an unusually vocal response from The Scientist's readers. Following are excerpts from several of these responses. Keith A. Crutcher Thomas Sneider Harry G. Day Jack Moline Robert Wondergem Keyvan Nazerian KEITH A. CRUTCHER Department of Neurosurgery University of Cincinnati Medical Center 231 Bethesda Ave. Cincinnati, Ohio 45267 E-mail: crutcher@beh.san.uc.edu I was glad to see someone making an effort to get the scientific community to recognize its important role in contributing to the ethical issues confronting society. I sense, however, the presence of a factor that may undermine the discourse between science and religion that Potter's essay encourages--a factor I have observed during the course of my efforts to get scientists to address the ethics of using the tissue of aborted fetuses. That is, how can we gain consensus on the importance of controlling population growth and then construct an ethical framework for implementing controls if we cannot even generate a dialogue on the simple question of what is a human being? Although there is a plethora of scientific evidence relating to this question as it arises in the context of prenatal life, I have been impressed by the unwillingness of most scientists to discuss the matter. I fear that the current burden of "political correctness" stifles much of the discussion that should occur in this and other areas where science can bring relevant information to bear. Even more problematic will be getting religiously diverse groups to agree on the fundamental questions, owing to the different premises held by each. THOMAS SNEIDER Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colo. 80523 E-mail: tsneider@vines.colostate.edu I enjoyed Potter's article very much. However, I dare say he is more optimistic than I. It may well be that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with rational approaches to humankind's continued existence on this planet. (Eastern religions are quite a different matter.) Regardless of what some theologians espouse, leaders and followers of these religions seem quite content to use/abuse the planet's resources willy-nilly, since their "real" existence will be in the "afterlife" and since, in their view, man has been "ordained" by their god to be the lord of creation, not merely its steward. When push comes to shove, probably very few of the espousers of these religions would agree that global survival has primary value compared to attainment of their heaven or nirvana or paradise or whatever. To them, Hans Küng is the aberration; Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or John Paul II is not. By the same token, I wonder if it is realistic to look to scientists to guide us out of the morass. There are, to be sure, eminent and non-eminent scientists who think deeply about their larger existence and responsibilities. But a myopic worldview, apathy, and greater concern for acquisition of position, power, and reward afflict the scientific establishment to at least the same extent as the general population. In the final analysis, it might be more effective to broaden the vision and strengthen the training of elementary schoolteachers so that questions about and a concern for global issues can be inculcated early on. HARRY G. DAY Department of Chemistry Indiana University Bloomington, Ind. 47405 I greatly appreciate the depth and rationality of Potter's very timely article regarding global survival and the need to effect beneficial "dialogue between secular science and organized religion." Of course, global survival is highly important; more important, however, is the quality of human existence. Thus, high-quality survival ultimately should be the worldwide goal toward which wise and determined scientists and organized religionists must work. After being joined by many others, they should be able to attain the goal. I am pretty sure that, in a conceptualization of the desired "dialogue," one would want it to take a variety of forms, to be dispassionate, and to be broad in its concerns. (Surely, for example, such dialogue could be effective in moving toward greater global education, and even greatly increased industrial movement, aimed at the prevention, treatment, and disposal of waste.) I agree that a most urgent need is for this dialogue between science and religion to focus on, as Potter says, "such important population-problem specifics as abortion, contraception, and reproductive freedom for women." That and related aspects of population control are central to global survival. We should not conclude that the situation is hopeless. Concerned scientists, religionists, and all others must move toward far greater constructive interaction and reasoned action. JACK MOLINE Rabbi Agudas Achim Congregation 2908 Valley Dr. Alexandria, Va. 22302 E-mail: p00779@psilink.com Regarding the shared quest for global survival between science and religion, I am impressed with Potter's willingness to address a controversial subject. But this is not an unabashed fan letter. Three years ago I attended a consultation on the environment organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Jewish Theological Seminary. During the course of the gathering, it became apparent to me that when scientists talk about a cooperative effort between science and religion, they are really talking about religion's redefining its priorities and philosophies under the guidance of science. Scientists do not hold open the idea that religion has something to say about the way scientists conduct themselves, think about life, or interact with the natural world. Indeed, far from religion's being intolerant and dismissive of scientific knowledge, it is scientists who confuse knowledge with wisdom by dismissing the contributions that religion makes on its own terms to global survival. As for population control, I agree that overpopulation threatens us all. But to call for stasis or decline in current population levels is to call for status quo in terms of all societies' world presence. And that is not just: I will encourage Jews to stop having lots of babies when you find me 6 million volunteers to restore us to the critical mass we need to ensure the presence not just of human animals, but of a balance of human variety in this world. Without a philosophy of a higher power--I call it "God"-- there is no reason to ensure survival. After all, short of ego, without a "religious" mandate, what is the purpose of maintaining life? There's a question science doesn't presume to answer. ROBERT WONDERGEM Department of Physiology East Tennessee State University Box 70576 Johnson City, Tenn. 37614 I welcome Potter's clarion call for religious and scientific leaders to combine their efforts in a common ethic for human survival and the well-being of our home--Planet Earth. I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out that Hans Kng was not the first to bridge the gap of religion and science, nor the first to invoke human survival, particularly with respect to the problem of overpopulation, as being the focus of our "stewardship." I think the seminal contribution in this regard rests with Earthkeeping: Christian Stewardship of Natural Resources (L. Wilkinson et al., Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans, 1980). In that book, the authors state: "If we are to exercise care for each other, as well as for the planet entrusted to us, we must temper our abilities with wisdom and love in order to achieve consciously what has been the case through most of human history--a relatively stable population. The alternative is to let the blind destructiveness of starvation, war, and disease do what we should do as a matter of careful stewardship. In order to maintain the planet as home to a million different kinds of creatures, it is necessary to have a limited human population. To work toward such a population is clearly one of the tasks of Christian stewardship." This decidedly Christian position may not fit within the confines delimited by Kng's ecumenical yardstick. If anything, it testifies to the rift among Christians, since the non-Catholic position is unequivocally out of step with that of the Vatican. KEYVAN NAZERIAN United States Department of Agriculture 3606 E. Mount Hope Rd. East Lansing, Mich. 48823 Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), the founder of the Baha'i faith, stated more than a century ago that science and religion are the two most potent forces in human life. He advocated the harmony of science and religion as a necessary step toward the establishment of a global civilization. Since then, humanity has made quantum leaps in science and technology, yet spiritually it has declined, in part because of clinging to irrelevant and old religious beliefs and in part because of neglecting its own spiritual needs. We travel at the speed of sound and communicate at the speed of light yet are unable to resolve personal conflicts, to say nothing of those of global dimension. Potter's suggestion that science and religion should join together in the struggle against environmental degradation and population explosion is vital for the survival of humanity; however, it should be broadened to include the improvement of the quality of man's intellectual, social, moral, and spiritual life. Baha'u'llah taught the unity of humanity, a concept that is spiritual yet supported by sciences such as physiology, psychology, and anthropology. The acceptance of this concept will elevate humanity to a new paradigm compatible with a global system. Within this paradigm, science and religion can effectively cooperate and work to solve the planet's critical problems. Science offers effective means to pragmatically resolve these problems, while religion inspires, motivates, and transforms people to do the tasks. Neither can do this alone.

On The Dialogue Between Science And Religion: Our Readers Respond

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of