The Christian scientist

At this point, what I would like to do is go very briefly through a number of fields of work, to show where I think the Christian dimension might lie, and how the Christian attitude can transform them. If my analysis of things is right, then first of all, the Christian's work will not be any less than the atheist's, and in fact should be more consistent with the nature of what he is working on than the atheist's, and will not be any less this-worldly than the atheist. But the Christian, first of all, can be happier at his work, and is capable of doing a better job than the atheist. His work should be able to come into its full reality because of his attitude toward it, in a way that the atheist's work cannot.

Let me begin, then, with considering what it means to take a Christian attitude toward science--theoretical science, now, not applied science, which I will treat under the head of engineering.

The first thing to note is that the theoretical scientist tends to justify his existence to the non-scientist (whom, interestingly, he calls the "layman," as if he were the priest of a new religion) in terms of engineering, saying that it is he who provides the information by which the engineer controls our environment. And this may be one of the goals of theoretical science, but it is not necessarily the goal; and it is very often the case that theoretical scientists have very little interest in what their discoveries can be used for. We even hear theorists exculpating themselves of blame for nuclear bombs or germ warfare on the grounds that they just found the knowledge, and it was none of their business what use it was put to. We even have theoreticians who countenance horrible things like the experimentations the Nazis performed on prisoners because it "advances knowledge."

Knowledge, from one point of view, can be used as a means for changing the world; but from another point of view it is an end in itself, since it is human activity--and, in fact, as Aristotle pointed out, it is the most characteristic and the highest of human activities (because it, along with choosing, are the purely spiritual activities that humans and only humans among bodies can perform). Hence, knowledge needs no justification; it is complete in itself, even when it can be used for a further purpose.

The Christian scientist, of course, recognizes this; and he also recognizes the uses to which knowledge can be put. He does not subordinate one to the other: "useless" knowledge is not for him worthless, but he does not sneer at "useful" knowledge as beneath his notice. He can pursue his interest without having to "justify" it somehow.

The Christian attitude of respect for knowledge and the world that is known, however, will help him to be a moral scientist. There are certain facts that must not be discovered, not because there is anything bad about the knowledge, but because the only way we can discover them is by violating reality. For instance, it might be possible to discover a way of transplanting a fetus from a mother who cannot bring him to term to a woman who can; but in order to do this, the experiments would involve putting many fetuses lives in danger and probably killing many. The knowledge would be a benefit to human beings; but the only practical way to acquire it will involve killing human beings. In vitro fertilization (test tube babies) currently involves fertilizing many eggs only one or two of whom will be used for implantation: bringing many humans into existence only to die, so that one can survive. The same goes for things like embryonic stem-cell research when it means killing embryos for the sake of the cells. Genetic engineering promises many benefits; but are we sure (given especially that new organisms can be patented) that the safeguards against new viruses worse than AIDS won't be launched on the world? And if there is a doubt, does the end (the knowledge) justify the means?

Science is amoral--neither moral nor immoral. There is nothing wrong as such with the acquisition of knowledge. But this is not to say that scientists can be amoral. A scientist who sees that the only way to acquire some knowledge is to violate the reality of something is morally bound not to take that route, and if it means never having the knowledge, then so be it. A scientist who has reason to believe that what he discovers will be used (given human nature) for destructive purposes (even if it can also be used constructively, like nuclear energy), is morally bound not to make the discovery, or having made it, not to make it known.

The Christian has the advantage over the atheist in this respect, because for the Christian the knowledge is not all there is in the world; because it is the end of his life, it is not objectively absolutely important, because the Christian recognizes that importance is subjective, not objective, and he does not see himself and his goals as important. For the Christian, knowledge of the world is a part of his respect for it; and to violate it out of "respect" for it is a blatant contradiction, which he can avoid without pain. In the last analysis, what does it matter if we know this or that?

But as I have said so often, Christianity is not a means of helping us to be moral; it happens that the Christian attitude here makes morality easier, but that is not its "purpose." The Christian saint is not the morally virtuous person; not that he will try to be immoral, but that isn't what Christianity is about.

Note, by the way, that if immoral experiments are performed (by others) and knowledge is gained by them, the Christian will not shun this knowledge as "tainted." It is not for us to judge others; and there is nothing wrong with the knowledge itself. I think that if the scientists in the 'forties had been Christians in my sense of the term, there would be no knowledge of the application of E=mc²; but this is not to say that we can't rejoice in the fact that we have the knowledge and can now build upon it in positive directions.

At any rate, those who make the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian scientist that one is moral and the other isn't miss the point that the non-Christian can be just as moral (I only said it was easier for the Christian), and have seen only the most superficial of the aspects of the scientist as Christian.