Abstract
Science has been defined as, “intelligence in action with no holds barred.”1 It began as the simple pursuit of truth, but today is fast becoming incompatible with veracity, quite simply because complete veracity leads to a form of complete scientific skepticism.2 Science was originally recognized, and indeed valued, as a method to know and understand the world.3 Ever since the time of the Arabs, “science has had but two simple functions: to enable us to know and learn about things and to thereby assist us in doing things.”4 Now, as a consequence of the development of the scientific method and the triumph of technique, since it is viewed as a means of changing the world.5 Probabilities are at the center of scientific inquiry. As such, an absolute form of truth is not within its scope of realization. Yet, science can yield such a high degree of probability that it becomes a certainty for all practical purposes.6
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Hoagland, Some Reflections on Science and Religion, in Science Ponders Religion 17, 18 (H. Shapley ed. 1960) (quoting the physicist P.W. Bridgman).
B. Russell, The Scientific Outlook 273 (1931).
B. Russell, The Impact of Science on Society 98 (1952).
Id. at 29. The Greeks, with Archimedes being the exception, were interested only in the first function. The Arabs, however, were in quest of the elixir of life and the methods needed to transmute base metals into gold. Id..
Id. at 98. During the past three centuries, the science which has been rated as successful has consisted “in a progressive mathematization of the sensible order...” Id. The history of science reveals that it is based on creative leaps of imaginative vision. L. Gilkey, Religion and the Scientific Future 45 (1970). See J. Maritain, Science and Wisdom (1940); H. Muller, Science and Criticism (1943).
Hoagland, Some Reflections on Science and Religion, in Science Ponders Religion 17, 24 (H. Shapley ed. 1960). The examples used for support of this last statement are: the certainty that the earth is round, not flat, and the realization that biological evolution, by natural selection, is no longer just a theory but is a high probability. Id. In its fundamental phase, science is explanation by description using methods of observation and experiment. The fundamental assumptions which it makes are practical conclusions of common sense: namely, that the objects and the events constituting the material universe are in a necessary connection with one another and that man, by his decisions, can affect the order and events of the universe itself. W. Schroeder, Science, Philosophy and Religion 44, 45, 58 (1933).
J. Huxley, Science, Religion and Human Nature 20, 21 (1930).
Id. at 58.
B. Russell, Religion and Science 3 (1935). See A. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms—The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language (1974).
B. Russell, Religion and Science 11 (135). Russell lists the fact that the historical religions have had a Church and a code of personal morals as a reason for further conflict. Id. at 4.
Russell, supra note 10, at 14. See generally Gustafson, Theology Confronts Technology and the Life Sciences, Commonweal 386 (June 16, 1978).
B. Russell, The Impact of Science on Society 16 (1952).
While religion seeks to explain the obvious in terms of mystery, science masters the simple and obvious and then witnesses, by the application of elemental principles, the dissolution of the complex. F. Northrup, Science and First Principles (1931). See also A. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, ch. 13 (1926).
A. Whitehead, The Interpretation of Science 179 (A. Johnson ed. 1961) [hereinafter referred to as Whitehead]. See also L. Gilkey, Religion and the Scientific Future, at Ch. 1 (1970) See generally Dobzhansky, Evolution: Implications for Religion, in Changing Man: The Threat and the Promise 142 (K. Haselden & P. Hefner eds. 1968).
Evans, Rationalization, Superstition and Science, in Science, Reason and Religion 43, 45 (C. Macey ed. 1974).
Supra note 6, at 17.
Gilkey, supra note 14, at 4.
Whitehead, supra note 14.
Id. at 176. See also Gilkey, supra note 14.
C. Coulson, Science, Technology and the Christian 48 (1960).
Gilkey, supra note 14, at 25.
Gilkey, supra note 14, at 25.
Schroeder, supra note 6, at 61.
Id. at 62, 63.
Barbour, The Methods of Science and Religion, in Science Ponders Religion 214, 215 (H. Shapley ed. 1960).
Murray, Two Versions of Man in Science Ponders Religion 147, 48 (H. Shapley ed. 1960).
Burhoe, Salvation in The Twentieth Century, in Science Ponders Religion 65, 77, 78 (H. Shapley ed. 1960).
Supra note 23, at 60.
C. Miller, A Scientist’s Approach to Religion 29, (1947).
Hasset, Freedom and Order Before God: A Catholic View, 31 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1170, 1180 (1956).
H. Smith, Ethics and the New Medicine 64 (1970) According to St. Augustine, a sexual act deprived of its procreative character was illegitimate. Thus, if, in the name of love, a couple chooses to express themselves sexually, they should accordingly perform the authentic sexual act not deprived of its procreative character. Love and procreation are inseparable.
Smith, Theological Reflections and the New Biology, 48 Ind. L. J. 605, 619, 621 (1973).
See also St. John-Stevas, A Roman Catholic View of Population Control, 25 Law & Contemp. Probs. 445, 446 passim (1960).
Supra note 30, at 1179.
Id. at 1180. Today, modern theologians and pastoral counselors would not view AIH as immoral or repulsive to marriage. Donor insemination (AID) is still regarded as violative of Catholic Church dogma. Human Sexuality—New Direction in American Catholic Thought 137-139 (1977).
See Human Sexuality, supra note 33, at 138-139.
See Theological Reflections and the New Biology, supra note 31, at 620.
J. Fletcher, The Ethics of Genetic Control 114 (1974).
Supra note 35, 621. See generally Making Babies: The Test Tube and Christian Ethics (A. Nichols & T. Hogan eds. 1984).
Supra note 35, at 622. Use of a woman’s womb by another couple would be considered by the Church as “analogous to allowing use of one’s body solely for the sexual pleasure of another, and, thus immoral.” Id. at 621.
See Human Sexuality, supra note 33, at 138-139.
Id. at 137.
Id. at 137-138.
Id. at 138.
Id.
Id. at 139.
A Swift Stunning Choice, Time, Sept. 4, 1978, at 65, 66.
Id.
38 Ecumenical Courier 1, 5 (Nos. 3-4, 1979).
Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility (I960), commented on in Time, Oct. 30, 1978, at 94.
Id. at 97.
Pope Warns Against Misuse of New Medical Procedures, Wash. Post, Oct. 28, 1980, at A4, col. 4. See generally D. Kelly, The Emergence of Roman Catholic Medical Ethics in North America (1979).
H. Smith, Ethics and the New Medicine 66, 67 (1970).
Id. at 67.
Id.
Id. at 68.
Id. at 69, 70 passim. See generally In Vitro Fertilization; Four Commentaries, 8 Hastings Center Rep. 7 (1978).
Ramsey, Freedom and Responsibility in Medical and Sex Ethics: A Protestant View, 31 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1189, 1198 (1956).
For an argument regarding the compatibility of AID with the Christian understanding of secularity, marriage and parenthood, see J. Fletcher, Morals & Medicine 118 (1960).
Rackman, supra at 1210.
Id. In 1958, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Nissim, ruled that children born to parents as the result of artificial insemination will be recognized by the Jewish religion as legitimate. A. Scheinfeld, Your Heredity and Environment 665 (1965).
Rackman, supra note 58, at 1209.
Id. at 1209-1210.
J. Fletcher, The Ethics of Genetic Control 114, 115 (1974). See generally D. Gosling, Science and Religion in India (1976). For an interesting perspective on atheist realism and Marxist dialectics regarding the New Biology, See P. Chauchard, Science and Religion, Ch. 3 (1962). The beliefs and reactions of other religions here may be found in: 3 Encyclopedia of Bioethics 901-1020, 1365-1378 (W. Reich ed. 1978).
Fletcher, supra at 127.
See generally, A. Toynbee, An Historian’s Approach to Religion (1956). Interestingly, a 1969 Harris opinion survey of some 1600 adults throughout America relative to advances and applications of the New Biology, revealed a most interesting attitudinal profile. Nineteen percent of all interviewed approved of AID, while 56% disapproved of the process. Where the only method for a married couple to conceive a family involved use of heterologous insemination (AID), 35% of those interviewed approved of the technique. Forty-nine percent of the men interviewed in the survey agreed in principle with homologous insemination (AIH), while 62% of the women expressed their approval of allowing their husband’s semen to be used, through artificial means of injection, in order to inseminate them.
Smith, For Unto Us a Child is Born—Legally!, 45 A.B.A.J. 143 (1970).
See Editorials, New Vatican Instruction on Human Life and Procreation, America, Mar. 28, 1987 at 245.
Id. McCormick Editorial at, 247.
Id.
Id. at 248.
Id.
Id.
Id. Cahill Editorial 246, at 247.
Supra note 67. On June 27,1988, the Michigan Legislature passed the Surrogate Parenting Act, which establishes surrogate parentage contracts as contrary to the public policy and void. Those who enter into, induce, arrange, procure, or otherwise assist in such contracts will be adjudged guilty of a felony and fined up to $50,000, imprisoned up to five years, or both. Mich. Compiled Laws Ann., § 722.851-722.863 (1988).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, G.P. (1989). Science, Religion, and the New Biology. In: The New Biology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0803-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0803-2_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-0805-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-0803-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive