Science, Virtue, and the Future of Humanity
When we speak about "faith and science," it is often too quickly assumed that we're only concerned about issues of "origins"--the knotty challenges at the intersection of the Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of evolutionary paradigms across the sciences. However, while those questions are important, they certainly don't represent the totality of issues and questions at the intersection of faith and science. There are important conversations to be had about genetics, sustainability, the responsible use of technology, and much, much more. For an excellent taste of what that conversation might look like, I commend to you the thoughtful pieces that regularly appear in The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society. In particular, I would highlight an outstanding symposium they've just published on "Science, Virtue, and the Future of Humanity." You'll find there respectful disagreements, and perhaps matters to disagree with. But you'll also find a very helpful history of virtue and an introduction to the basic principles of virtue ethics as they might impact science and technology. I would especially commend to you two of the contributions to the symposium: Patrick Deneen, with his usual masterful analysis and irenic prose, critically considers the intertwining of liberalism and science as an explanation for the absence of virtue in contemporary discussions. As they summarize: Patrick J. Deneen argues that the birth of liberalism was brought about by two transformations in our understanding of science: the move away from the contemplative study of nature to the project to harness and manipulate it for desired ends, and the new belief that human behavior is itself subject to predictable material laws. Liberalism thus arose as an effort to systematically and scientifically improve society. Along the way, modern society has replaced the virtue of Aristotle’s self-governing social animals with the new virtue of the unimpeded will to mastery. Such a world has little respect for what human beings have been given by nature. As Deneen presents it, the modern view is that we are not really stuck with virtue; actually, we are not stuck with much of anything. Rather, all limitations — including even tradition and culture — are recast as forms of repression that we can eventually overcome. Robert Kraynak then points out the borrowed capital that many atheists work with, pointing our their inconsistency. Robert P. Kraynak argues that modern philosophy and modern science cannot explain why appeals to equality and dignity ought to be taken seriously. Thinkers like Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker deny that human dignity has any natural foundation while simultaneously affirming well-respected common liberal pieties about the moral demands of justice and autonomy. They are, in the words of the late philosopher Richard Rorty, “free-loading atheists”: they embrace Christianity’s view of virtue even as they vehemently reject its account of who we are as human beings. The Christian Kraynak agrees with the atheist Nietzsche that it is intellectually dishonest and even tyrannical to assert the teachings of Christian morality while dogmatically rejecting the creedal formulations on which those very teachings are based. Kraynak concludes by defending the need to take seriously the Bible’s theological claims if we are to begin to understand who we really are. The whole symposium is worth your time. And you might want to add The New Atlantis to your reading habits.