Science, Religion Must Share Quest For Global Survival

Author: VAN RENSSELAER POTTER, pp.12 Date: May 16,1994 The continued degradation of the global environment and the international population explosion that contributes to it are matters that must concern every scientist. Each of us is capable of participating in efforts in the interest of the biosphere and human survival; each of us has something to contribute to the solution of the seemingly intractable problems confronting us. No longer can we relax in the assumption that, years from now, "when things get bad enough," science will step in to provide the answers. The time to step in and prove our ethical as well as technical competence is now; things are already "bad enough." And central to our efforts must be the promotion of dialogue between science and religion concerning human and biosphere survival. For centuries, the subject of human values has been regarded as beyond the realm of science, the exclusive property of theologians and secular philosophers. Now we must assert not only that scientists have transcendent values, too, but also that the values embedded in the scientific ethos need to be integrated with those of religion and philosophy in order to facilitate political processes beneficial to the global environment's health. Many books and articles have focused on environmental problems and human health, but relatively few have dealt with the issue of whether the human species can survive in the long term in what may be called "a civil society." Two such books are The Technological Conscience: Survival and Dignity in an Age of Expertise by sociologist Manfred Stanley (University of Chicago Press, 1981) and The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethic for the Technological Age by the late German philosopher Hans Jonas (University of Chicago Press, 1993). Neither, however, deals with ways in which secular views can or should be integrated with traditional religious views. On the other hand, a beginning attempt along these lines is presented in Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic by Hans Kung (New York, Continuum Publishing Co., 1993). Kung, director of the Ecumenical Institute at the University of Tubingen (Germany), is a Swiss theologian who, although originally trained as a Roman Catholic priest, has, since 1964, departed from dogma in a series of provocative books and articles. In Kung's thought and writings, concern for the future of the human race has been a high priority. It was he who drafted the 5,000- word "Declaration of a Global Ethic" at a meeting of the Parliament of the World Religions held in Chicago last September on the 100th anniversary of the organization's original assembly. Thousands attended the week-long event, and Kung's declaration was signed by 250 religious leaders. In his works, Kung has taken a strong position in examining the issues separating the diverse religions of the world and deploring their record of killing each other in large numbers right up to the present. At the same time, he has proclaimed that--at the core--the world's religions all are grounded in ethical insights that deserve one's attention and can justify one's hope. Unfortunately the core religious morality he depicts does not incorporate--and therefore cannot respond to--scientifically devolved demographics that project a doubling of the world's population within the next century. Indeed, people embracing several of the world's largest religions--Roman Catholicism and Islam, in particular--are among the major contributors to the current, frightening rate of increase. Only science has the techniques for assessing population changes and their impact. But at least, in formulating a global ethic, Kung has hit upon human survival as the key issue confronting the world's people-- an idea that no other theologian has even dared to mention. While other religious leaders have proclaimed that life is sacred and have championed human rights, only Kung has put survival as such on the agenda. In contrast, scientists have long embraced human welfare and, implicitly, survival as the very heart of their endeavors. They are thus well-suited for entry into the campaign for human and biosphere survival. To the more devout, the notion that scientists could step into such a matter and take charge is bound to seem ominously "antireligious," since, in general, religion's ultimate goal rests not in long-term survival of Earth's fauna and flora, but in the survival of individual souls, or whatever, in some form of "life after death." Kung, on the other hand, made it clear that a global ethic taking us beyond the 21st century was already in his mind when he wrote Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View (New York, Doubleday, 1988). Not only theologians, but also secular philosophers (other than the likes of Stanley and Jonas) have failed to think of human and biosphere survival as an ethical issue. Rather, the examination of ethics has been confined to matters involving interpersonal or social relationships among humans and thus excluding questions of behavior relating to the vast population and ecological problems facing Earth's inhabitants. In his recent book, however, Kung (while avoiding certain specific and important matters) takes a step forward: In addition to declaring that there can be "no survival without a world ethic," "no world peace without peace between the religions," and "no peace between the religions without dialogue between the religious," he goes still further when he says that a "coalition of believers and non-believers [atheists, agnostics, and so forth] in mutual respect may also be necessary for a common world ethic." Scientists should applaud the efforts of Hans Kung in urging reconciliation between "believers" and those who are not essentially characterized as religious; included among these, I believe, are the great majority of scientists. And we need to join forces with his drive toward global responsibility for survival and his call for the "mutual respect" necessary for "a common world ethic." Certainly the involvement of biological scientists is required; more than others, it is likely, these scientists are aware that world population is increasing too rapidly. And although major religions have a stake in the issue, it is the duty of the biological scientists to point out--while respectful of the various religious tenets--that ultimate survival of the human race is contingent upon limiting the world population to what is compatible with a healthy biosphere. While it is up to the various religions to enter into dialogue and defend their positions, it is up to scientists to proclaim the severity of the overpopulation problem and insist, for example, that it cannot be solved while major religions oppose any attempt to limit fertility. And yet, while dialogue on the matter is bound to be frustrating, bioethicists must recognize that science alone will not prevail-- that there can be no survival without religions' agreement on population ethics. The key question, of course, is whether dialogue can achieve consensus and political acceptance by national governments. Can the pursuit of a world ethic shared by religion and science be laid out in concrete principles for action? In my opinion, the burden of addressing global problems through what German philosopher Jurgen Habermas termed "communicative rationality" rests upon scientists. It is they who are capable of reviving the idea of a civil society and conveying the transcendent motivation of long-term human survival. But the role of science in this dialogue is not by itself sufficient--since the role of religion as a motivating force is paramount. Kung insists that, if it is to be effective, the dialogue must indeed begin by agreement on basic assumptions before proceeding to the details of survival. Indeed, he writes that "whatever the basis for the unconditional character of the ethical demands in the various religions . . . one thing is certain: religions can present their ethical demands with a quite different authority from a merely human one." Thus, one may consider Kung's global ethic as actually a global theology for survival that de- emphasizes God-images but steadfastly utilizes universal religious-given precepts. Kung, however, has avoided mentioning such important population-problem specifics as abortion, contraception, and reproductive freedom for women. Therefore, these key issues on which human survival may depend are excluded from his demand for global responsibility. But we do indeed need rational discourse to guide political decisions on such matters-- and it is necessary for every scientist to stand up and be counted. Is there hope for reasonable dialogue between science and religion that would yield progress toward the desired global ethic? To what extent, really, are the religions concerned about the fate of the biosphere? Unfortunately, although a high percentage of denominations in the United States support the general concept of stewardship for the Earth and many have put forth official statements on population or family planning, no surveys are available to reveal the attitude of religious leaders on the concept of global survival. To Do What Is Right Today, many conscientious scientists have already embraced stewardship as a worthy pursuit whose goal is the survival of the human species and of a viable biosphere. In my opinion, the world's religions--if they, too, are to embrace stewardship--need science to tell them what paths they should follow. With religion then generating the universal motivation for stewardship, a forceful coalition of believers and nonbelievers will, I hope, materialize to preserve the biosphere and ensure human survival-- to do, in short, what is right. As individual scientists, we can do much to proceed according to an evolving bioethic conditioned by a combination of personal humility and proud display of professional competence. In addition to our individual disciplinary associations, we should be aware of the many organizations that deal with environment problems, human rights, and local politics. We can join such groups--the Union of Concerned Scientists, for example--and express our opinions through them on issues of human survival. We can do this without sacrificing our technical productivity. Of course, to move effectively toward forging the matrix for productive dialogue between secular science and organized religion--traditionally separated by a vast gulf of mutual misunderstanding and mistrust--we face a daunting task. Is the situation hopeless? I am compelled to think it is not. And I suggest that science must make the first move. As far as the United States is concerned, the National Academy of Sciences may be a linchpin for such an operation; and if it succeeds, the effort could serve as a model for national academies here. Van Rensselaer Potter is Hilldale Professor of Oncology, Emeritus, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706; E-mail: vpotter@oncology.wisc.edu. He is the author of numerous articles and books on global bioethics, most recently Global Bioethics: Building on the Leopold Legacy (Michigan State University Press, 1993).

Science, Religion Must Share Quest For Global Survival

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of