The Secular Humanist Concept of Science & Technology
The student presented a lesson entitled “The Secular Humanist Concept of Science and Technology.” A Secular Humanist Declaration saysWe believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral science for knowledge of the universe and man’s place within it. Modern astronomy and physics have opened up exciting new dimensions of the universe: they have enabled humankind to explore the universe by means of space travel. Biology and the social and behavioral science have expanded our understanding of human behavior. We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.[1]
Humanist Manifesto II says
Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.[2]
Humanist Manifesto III declares, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.”[3]
The student began his critique of the humanist concept of science and technology by asking, “Should we be afraid of science?” The above quotes certainly imply that Christians have every reason to fear science, for science and faith are incompatible. But, Christians have no reason whatsoever to fear science. God created the cosmos (Gen. 1:1); therefore, what do Christians have to fear from an honest investigation of the physical world?
Many amazing scientific discoveries were made by theists.[4] Louis Agassiz, “the father of glacial science,”[5] is remembered as the one who discovered the ice ages. However, his greatest contribution to science was probably as a zoologist and geologist who helped establish the field of paleontology; Agassiz referred to each species of animal or plant as a “thought of God.”[6] Francis Bacon is known as the “father of the scientific method”[7] of observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Bacon wrote, “No one should maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficiency in both.”[8] Isaac Newton is remembered as the one who discovered the universal law of gravitation.[9] In writing about the orbits of the planets, Newton said, “This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”[10]
Technology certainly has served a useful place in our society. The humanists assert such. “We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind.”[11] “Technology is a vital key to human progress and development.”[12]
Medical technology has eased human suffering. Through medical technology, man has eradicated numerous diseases such as polio and smallpox. Through medical research, man knows something as basic as washing hands can help curtail the spread of communicable diseases. Through medical technology, physicians can perform amazing surgeries from heart by-pass to transplantation to cancer surgeries
Does not modern technology come indirectly from God? Man bears God’s image (Gen. 1:27). God is an intelligent, rational Being. God, in creating man in his own image, instilled man with intelligence and rationality. In using intelligence and rationality to understand the world around them, men are using the faculties with which God endowed them. Additionally, using technology is part of the command given to Adam. God told the first man, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Gen. 1:28). God intended man to subdue the earth and through appropriate use of technology, man is able to do precisely that.
Humanists give science far too much prominence. Kurtz has stated, “We look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man’s place within it. Modern astronomy and physics have opened up exciting new dimensions of the universe; they have enabled humankind to explore the universe by means of space travel. Biology and the social and behavioral sciences have expanded our understanding of human behavior.”[13]
The humanists look to science, rather than Scripture, for man’s place in the universe. Scripture alone can provide that guidance. “The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes” (Ps. 19:8). “We have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Pet. 1:19). Scripture is the light which tells man his place within the universe. Only the light of Scripture will suffice – “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Scripture will “thoroughly” equip God’s servant for all good works – he does not need any other revelation (be it science, opinions, or whatever) to understand his place in the universe.
In regard to human behavior, the humanists look to biology and the social sciences. When individuals look at human behavior in scientific terms, they overlook man’s real possibility to sin. Glen Tinder correctly wrote, “Much of the tragic folly of our times, not only on the part of extremists such as Lenin but also on the part of middle-of-the-road liberals and conservatives, would never have arisen had we not, in our technological and ideological pride, forgotten . . . sin.”[14] Sigmund Freud, for example, developed an evolutionary solution to human behavior.[15] According to Freud, humans’ more primitive impulses (the id) come from the brain’s animal part, and the rational mind (the ego) evolved later. Thus, what society views as bad really is simply the animal part of man’s brain coming through. Bad behaviors result from evolution, not poor use of moral responsibility. Ivan Pavlov, famous for his experiments on salivating dogs, stated that all mental life could be explained “in entirely mechanical terms of stimulus and response.”[16] Thus, what individuals do is just the response to stimuli, not because they choose to act in a certain way. J. B. Watson, behaviorism’s founder, said, “Give me the baby . . . the possibility of shaping in any direction is almost endless.”[17] This nation has headed down this path, but is this a path on which this nation really wants to continue?
The student’s biggest problem with the humanist concept of science is the desire to purge science of moral responsibility. “While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances.”[18] “We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided.”[19]
C. S. Lewis, the well-known Christian apologist, said that the rise of scientific naturalism would lead to “the abolition of man,” for such science “denies the reality of those things central to our humanity; our sense of right and wrong, of purpose, of beauty, of God.”[20] Francis A. Schaeffer aptly said, “Modern man has no real boundary condition for what he should do; he is left only with what he can do.”[21]
Much modern scientific or technological practices are morally objectionable. There is, for example, great potential in stem cell research. Each embryonic stem call has the capacity to develop into all 210 different kinds of tissue in the human body.[22] Thus, embryonic stem cell research could conceivably lead to cures for paralysis, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other ailments. The problem, however, is that embryonic stem cells are harvested for research by puncturing and killing the embryo.[23] Human cloning also raises ethical problems. In 1997, Ian Wilmut produced a cloned sheep from the mammary cell of an adult ewe.[24] Dr. Wilmut and his colleagues fused 277 eggs with udder cells, and produced only 29 embryos, and only the sheep famously known as Dolly survived more than six days.
Why should Christians be concerned about the ethical implications of stem cell research and cloning? These practices result in the destruction of human life. Scripture teaches that even the child in the womb is fully human. David wrote
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be (Ps. 139:13-16).
Scripture presents God as active in conception; Rachel bore Joseph through the Lord’s intervention (Gen. 30:22). Elizabeth regarded John the Baptist as a person before he was born. She told Mary, “As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (Lk. 1:44). The word for “baby” is used in the New Testament for a child both inside and outside the womb.[25]
What should Christians take from the biblical teaching? Christians cannot view the destruction of innocent human life as acceptable – period. Whether in the form of abortion, infanticide, murder, cloning, or stem cell research, the taking of innocent human life is unacceptable. What about the possible benefits from cloning and stem cell research? Stem cells can be harvested from placentas and umbilical cords and from some adult tissues such as bone marrow and the nervous system.[26] If humanity can be benefited from research on stem cells other than embryonic stem cells, let the scientists research! If humans can benefit from the cloning of animals, let humans clone them! The animals do not bear the likeness and image of God as humans do.
_______________
[1] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 20-21.
[2] Humanist Manifesto II, Sixteenth.
[3] Humanist Manifesto III.
[4] Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God rev. ed. (Wheeling, IL: Day Star Publications, 1997). Heeren mentions 50 theists who were on the cutting edge of science.
[5] Ibid., 334.
[6] Ibid.,
[7] Ibid., 335.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 352.
[11] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 20-21.
[12] Humanist Manifesto II, Sixteenth.
[13] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 20.
[14] Glenn Tinder, “Birth of a Troubled Conscience,” Christianity Today (April 26, 1999): 37; quoted in Colson, How Now Shall We Live?, 165.
[15] Colson, How Now Shall We Live?
[16] Ibid., 173.
[17] J. B. Watson, The Way of Behaviorism (New York: Harper, 1928), 35; quoted in Colson, How Now Shall We Live?
[18] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 20.
[19] Humanist Manifesto II, Sixteenth.
[20] Colson, How Now Shall We Live?, 404.
[21] Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 237.
[22] J. Kerby Anderson, “Cloning, Stem-Cell Research, and the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra (2002) 159: 462-472.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Bert Thompson, The Christian and Medical Ethics Scripture and Science Series, rev. ed. (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1999).
[25] Anderson, “Cloning, Stem-Cell Research, and the Bible.”
[26] Ibid.