role of science as stimulus to christian ethical thinking

Question 1

how science poses moral issues to modern medicine

Answer 1

• has potential to cure many illnesses/prolong life but when is it right to turn off life support
• should a great deal of money be spent on expensive treatment for one if same resources could be used for simpler treatments for more
• fletcher believed christianity needs to embrace new tech where they can improve people’s lives & abandon rule based ethics like NML which would block ongoing development of christian ethic

Question 2

how science poses moral issues to genetic modification

Answer 2

• fletcher argues we should consider genetic modify where it would improve human condition
• space exploration may require genetic modification to allow humans to live in different ent
• science has potential to merge human biology with robotic systems & potentially upload human mind to computer environment that could be subjectively immortal
• science has given humankind possibilities that it didn’t have before & raise ethical issues
• particular problem is it deals with issues that are quite different than from 2000 years ago & no easy way to read bible and find clear answers to modern ethical questions

Question 3

how science poses moral issues to science & evolutionary ethics

Answer 3

• darwin’s theory can be summed up as ‘survival of the fittest’ & becomes basis for an ethical view
• if weakest in soviet given extra help & survived to breed then species would weaken
• logic of this ethical spin on natural selection is that strong should be encouraged & weak eliminated to secure better future
• view ethical priorities of humankind could see christian ethics with emphasis on compassion as weakening species-> view taken by nietzsche
• without adapting our ethical thinking christian’s & atheists will have no answer to where science will take us

Question 4

how science poses moral issues to environmental ethics

Answer 4

• scientific advances in agriculture/farming arguably having an increasing negative effect on world’s environment
• some believe christian scripture gives humans deminion over environment
• christianity has contributed significantly to environmental crisis
• though churches have environmental policy there’s little co-ordinated effort among christian’s to make major impact
  |_ intensive farming, monocultures

Question 5

how was science challenged christian belief

Answer 5

• as scientific knowledge of world increases there’s less scope for god
• to be used as an explanation for what we don’t under god becomes the god of gaps
• when sciences knows there’s all to know there will be no place for god at all

Question 6

how has god been used to fill in the gaps of our knowledge

Answer 6

• in ancient times lightning, hail or thunder thought to be result of god expressing displeasure with humanity but is now known these are common meteorological problems
• used to be believed god moved the planets in their orbit but is now known to his us governed by gravity

Question 7

what does god of gaps problem lead to

Answer 7

• if god is part of scientific explanation for world it should be possible to detect his by scientific means
• if there is no convincing evidence then his existence fails as a scientific hypothesis
• assumes god exists alongside others in world & many religious believers would say this is faulty as god is not alongside others

Question 8

religious responses to god of gaps - tillich & god should be described as ‘being itself’ than ‘a being’

Answer 8

• applied to ‘god of gaps’ dilemma if god is a being among others there’s indeed less & less room for him
• but classical theism is based on idea god is immanent & transcendent
• god isn’t just a thing in the world but the means by which whole world exist
• any god found in a gap couldn’t be god or classical theism

Question 9

religious responses to god of gaps - polkinghorne says god doesn’t intervene in world but influences at quantum level

Answer 9

• thinks god acts at quantum level as such activity there would be undetectable for humans
• since everything in large scale universe is affected by what happens at quantum levels god would be active in world so no gap to fill

Question 10

religious responses to god of gaps - wiles says gods action in the world is ‘creation’

Answer 10

• for wiles, god has one action in relation to universe (creation) but is on-going and included everything
• god is active all time, everywhere within and beyond

Question 11

is the god of gaps left in scientific explanations an adequate or satisfying god for christian theism

Answer 11

• if answer to this is ‘no’ then the argument is a useful one for christian’s to take not of
• prevents ‘god’ from being seen as a particular and limited being -> not only bad theology but originally condemned as idolatry

Question 12

19th century christian responses to darwin’s theory of evolution- church of england scientific representatives generally ridiculed the theory

Answer 12

• claimed it was a way of turning humans into beasts -> genetics show humans share common ancestor with apes
• evolution challenges idea that humans were literally created in gods image there no specifically human image
• others animals do have rationality/moral traits

Question 13

19th century christian responses to darwin’s theory of evolution- most liberal anglicans admired the theory claiming evolution way god designed world

Answer 13

• most favoured christian response in 21st century -> god initiated evolution of species by means of evolution with aim of producing beings like ourselves
• one of biggest fruit of this view today can be seen in hick’s irenaean theodicy claiming god produced humanity by evolution so we remain at epistemically distance from god
• evidence to the contrary showing humanity must have come through divine intervention in nature would destroy our freedom to accept/deny god

Question 14

19th century christian responses to darwin’s theory of evolution- some take an ‘interventionist’ approach

Answer 14

• what modern day creationists would support
• argue natural selection not needed as when wants to god intervenes directly
• people believing this are termed creationists - religious beliefs according to which religious accounts of origin of world believed where differ to science

Question 15

19th century christian responses to darwin’s theory of evolution- negative criticism & caricature

Answer 15

• wilberforce argued there was no evidence to show there could be any change in their species
• british association meeting 1860 debate where he asked huxley if it was through grandmother or father he claimed descent from an ape
• responded by saying he was less concerned about being related to an sore than be connected with a man using gifts to get truth
• in 21st century many christian’s see no incompatibility between evolution and gods role as creator

Question 16

contemporary responses to big bang - big bang theory provides incontrovertible evidence that there was a beginning of universe

Answer 16

• genesis 1:3 first thing god creates is light & many christian’s see this as metaphor for light
• something that begun naturally seems to require something to start it as all events are caused
• if universe was caused must have been a first cause & considered in connection with aquinas third way

Question 17

contemporary responses to big bang - fine tuning argument for big bang suggest to christian’s that god caused it to happen

Answer 17

• in cosmological argument mentioned fact that in order to produce intelligent life, cosmological constants all have to be correct to an impossibly narrow configuration
• fact we’re here suggests something has fine tuned constants since odds of their being correct by chance are 10’80 against
• if this is only universe god must’ve made it

Question 18

contemporary responses to big bang - multiverse theory suggests many universes

Answer 18

• if this is cases, statistically there would be many universes in which cosmological constants after big bang are set to same levels as this one so ‘fine-tuning’ argument isn’t strong as it looks

Question 19

contemporary responses to big bang - official position of catholic church where pope pius xii declared didnt conflict with catholic idea of creation

Answer 19

• clearly an atheists would say that the big bang was i caused or self caused whereas christian’s would argue that it was caused by will of god
• no shortage of scientists who accept god as cause of big bang

Question 20

creationist view

Answer 20

christian’s who reject scientific accounts of origins of universe & bible is seen as the ‘true’ science

Question 21

creationist view - six day creationism

Answer 21

• belief follows literal reading of genesis where god created world in 6 days
• all humans descend from adam and eve
• interpretation defended by morris - wrote book to promote creation scheme
• another example, ken ham dates noah’s flood at 2348 BC, argues ark carried enough species for biodiversity. dinosaurs co-existed with genetically modern humans - radiometruc ways of dating earth are wrong only evidence is god
• view held by larder number of people particularly usa
• no scientific evidence for this view since genesis narratives of creation & flood have clear dependence on some features of their earlier babylonian counterparts & hard to see force of creationalist views beyond level of simple belief

Question 22

creationist view -progressive creationism

Answer 22

• accepts view of geology that earth is approx 4.5 billion years old & cosmology that universe is about 13.8 billion years old
• rejects darwinian evolution favour of the view that god created species uniquely so no gradual evolution from earlier species
• new arrivals created by god’s intervention as an ‘intelligent designer’ & new species appeared fully formed
• some accept evolution as explanation of ‘lower’ beings but claim special creation for humans
• pre human hominid species discovered by archaeology deemed not to have souls, adam first man to be given eternal soul

Question 23

creationist view - intelligent design

Answer 23

• argues that certain features of universe & of living things are best explained by intelligent cause rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection
• generally doesn’t identify the designer although some intelligent design proponents equate designer with christian god
• behe claims many biological systems are ‘irreducibly complex’ at molecular level so that removal of any one part of system would make it stop working.
• holds this challenged darwinian evolution as irreducible complexity cannot be produced by successive modifications
• morde modern attempt to make creationism respectable but scientific community is virtually unanimous in rejecting it as pseudoscience