The Pope on Science and Religion

Today, Pope Benedict warned that the "seductive" powers of science are once again denigrating humanity's spiritual nature, reigniting the old science vs religion debate. Calling for a more interdisciplinary approach, he said that,

the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe. [But] there is a strong temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known. . . .

In order to avoid going down this path, it is important not to ignore anthropological, philosophical and theological research, which highlight and maintain the mystery of human beings, because no science can say who they are, where they come from and where they go. The knowledge of human beings is then, the most important of all forms of knowledge.

Human beings always stand beyond what can be scientifically seen or perceived. To overlook the question of man's 'being' inevitably leads to refusing the possibility of research into the objective truth of being [. . .] and, effectively, to an incapacity to recognize the foundation upon which human dignity rests, from the embryo until natural death.

Science cannot rest on its own, and, despite what "science" would have you believe, it is not value-free, nor should it be. All science (all knowledge itself, perhaps) is value-laden. Science for the sake of science, and progress for the sake of progress should be questioned, examined and harnessed, both in its limits and its potential.

"Man," says the Pope, "is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions." And I have to agree. There is more to a human being than nucleotides, neural transmitters or brain stem functions. In fact, we are much more than the sum total of our entire body and all of its magnificent functionality, including our ability to objectively reason.

Indeed, as the Pope alluded to, our humanity emerges from our biology, our reason and our ability to intuit the world of the spirit. In fact, I might say that our humanity rests of science AND faith. While science cannot even ask spiritual questions, it can foster or destroy human dignity.

Human Cloning: A Viable Reality

Stemagen Corp. of La Jolla, California announced last Thursday that it had successfully created cloned human embryos from donor DNA and eggs. Using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique whereby the nucleus is removed from a donor cell and placed in a egg cell devoid of its nucleus to be reprogramed by the egg, the company produced five new human embryoic cells. The press release goes on to explain:

In the experiments, the researchers removed the nuclei of mature oocytes from healthy young women who had previously donated eggs for successful infertility treatments. The SCNT technique was then used to insert DNA from an adult male donor into the oocytes. The DNA was derived from a type of cell called fibroblasts, obtained from skin biopsies.

Subsequently, several of the reconstructed oocytes continued to develop as normal embryos, to the blastocyst stage. Extensive and carefully documented genetic tests were performed to confirm the genetic identity of the cloned embryos. In three embryos, tests showed the same DNA as the male fibroblast donor.

In one of the three cases, additional tests showed that the embryo had another type of DNA, called mitochondrial DNA, from both the female oocyte donor and the male DNA donor.

Mitochondrial DNA testing is viewed as an essential proof of successful human cloning -- particularly after previous fabricated reports from a South Korean research group. Amidst this background of controversy, the researchers took extraordinary steps to ensure that their experiments were properly conducted and documented. These included approval by an independent review board and confirmation of the genetic results by an independent laboratory, among other steps.

The primary hope is that this research can be used to combat infertility, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injury, among others.

According to its ethical principles, "Stemagen's mission is to maintain exemplary standards in human embryonic stem cell research in accordance with the highest ethical and research principles." While I applaud their efforts to alleviate suffering and do so in an ethical manner, consequences of this research for the future needs to be carefully monitored. Creating human life (and despite the fact that we are talking about nuclei, DNA and eggs, we are still talking about a fully potential human being) for the purpose of taking it apart to see how it ticks is questionable. Additionally, there's nothing in this report that tells me that these clones could not be allowed to grow from blastocyst to fetus, from "full term" baby to adulthood.

If so, what then?

False Prophesy

I don't usually comment on current events and politics, but this certainly has me thinking.

Last year, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson announced that there will be an attack, possibly radiological or nuclear, on the United States that would cause "mass killing". The year before, he predicted that the Oregon coast would be hit by a massive Tsunami and that the Republicans would keep control of the Congress. In 2004, he "foresaw" the "landslide" re-election of President Bush. Noting that these events hadn't come to pass in the way he foresaw, Robertson said, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us." Maybe, God changed His mind?

This year, Robertson claims that God told him that the world will continue to see violence (duh!) and recession will hit the U.S. economy. Oil will surpass $150/barrel as the dollar continues to loose ground. Additionally, "We will see the presence of angels," he prophesied, "and we will see an intensification of miracles around the world."

While I certainly believe and hope that miracles will increase, I am not sure how one might quantify that claim. Perhaps, that's what Mr. Robertson is hoping for. Perhaps, he's just hoping that we forget his mistakes as well. I'm willing to do so, if he stops pretending to speak for God. My Bible tells me that, at the very least, I should ignore people who claim that God told them something, that God Himself has informed the would-be prophet of an impending event, yet that event did not come to pass (Jeremiah 23:16, 1 John 4:1). It's just sound advice; people who don't know enough to question their own "visions" should not be a leader, in my opinion.

I used to enjoy The 700 Club even if I found some of the opinions to be unsound or unjustifiable, but I don't think I can support something that only helps atheism any more.

Yes, People in the Church ARE Human

It is with continued awe that I am impressed, uplifted, edified and inspired while simultaneously (and in equal measure) appalled, dismayed and depressed by the Church. Just after Pope Benedict XVI urges end to conflicts in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Congo, an embarrassing brawl breaks out between fellow believers at the traditional place of Jesus' birth. Merry Christmas! *sighs*

Contaminated Portland

I always thought Portland was a clean place to live. At least it was when I was growing up. Apparently, it's not any more, becoming a regular Toxic Town. Pulling in behind Baltimore and Milwaukee, Portland has the highest number of leaky storage tanks (20,655) and has 10 corrective actions. I guess I didn't even realize that there was an air pollution advisory earlier this Fall. Maybe, I've just gotten used to it . . . *wheezes*

Sesame Street: Adults Only!

“Sesame Street: Old School” (Volumes 1 and 2) now comes with a warning. “These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.” Why you say? According to the New York Times:

Nothing in the children’s entertainment of today, candy-colored animation hopped up on computer tricks, can prepare young or old for this frightening glimpse of simpler times. Back then — as on the very first episode, which aired on PBS Nov. 10, 1969 — a pretty, lonely girl like Sally might find herself befriended by an older male stranger who held her hand and took her home. Granted, Gordon just wanted Sally to meet his wife and have some milk and cookies, but . . . well, he could have wanted anything. As it was, he fed her milk and cookies. The milk looks dangerously whole.

Riiiiight. So Bert and Ernie are oppressed, closeted gays, forced to live in a dingy basement apartment. Kermit refuses to be called an amphibian American. Cookie Monster is a cookie away from blindness and foot amputation. Oscar the Grouch is needlessly deprived of Wellbutrin. Stubborn denial of Global Warming and urban pollution! Rows of claustrophobia-inducing brownstones. Modeling of “wrong behavior”, such as smoking, domestic violence . . . having imaginary friends.

I understand that times change, societal values change. But come on now. Sesame Street, at least the ones I remember watching (I was part of the show's target audience the year it began), was about learning to pronounce "C", and the "agua" and "water" meant the same thing, and that two plus two equals four. It was also about getting along with people and our emotions. Life is not always happy. People are sometimes weird or annoying. And today's children's programing is any better at teaching children to be better people?

Preying on the Unethical Computer User

It seems that spammers have created yet another way to get unsuspecting people to do their dirty work. A new Windows "game", which shows a half-naked woman, temps people into undressing her more if they can correctly type in text shown in an accompanying image.

The trick of the "game" is that the text players are asked to decipher are security measures placed on various forums, email and account registration forms. The scrabbled text images are almost impossible for spamming spiders and robots to correctly input, thus, keeping spammers at bay. With the help of an unethical computer user, this technique works because "the average male e-mail user would want to see more".

Happy Halloween . . . I guess.

Halo 3, an Ethical Church Recruiting Tool?

As a long-time computer gamer and programmer, I have mixed feelings about the use of violent computer games as Christian recruiting tools. As reported in the New York Times (Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game at Church), Halo 3 has just become such a tool.

I tend to disagree with Daniel R. Heimbach, a professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, when he says, “To justify whatever killing is involved by saying that it’s just pixels involved is an illusion." There is a qualitative (and, one might argue, quantative) difference between blowing up a pixelized, 3D alien and tossing a real life hand grenade into the lap of a real life person. The only illusion here is the illusion that opponents in a computer game appear to be "alive". They are, of course, not. There's no difference between "killing" a monster (or another "person" for that matter), in a computer game and knocking down mechanical ducks at a carnival.

That said, I certainly do not discount the power of video games to desensitize, dehumanize and disassociate our actions from any real consequences. I can personally attest to the insidious way in which a computer game can subtly change the ethical perspectives of a player. I have no doubt in my mind that violent computer games can contribute to unethical and criminal behavior.

On top of those general observations, to use something clearly designed for mature audiences (at least 17 years old) to draw kids to church seems mildly irresponsible. While it is important to be all things to all people in order to help them come to Christ, I don't believe this falls under that mandate. Hey, if people want to play Halo 3, be my guest. I hear it's a great game. Hosting a Halo party sounds like a great outreach. I just don't see how it really is appropriate for kids.

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

With the vote count at 6-3, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's 1997 "Death with Dignity" law. The Bush administration began the challenge in 2001, claiming that the law allowed physicians to prescribe drugs without "legitimate medical purpose". For the majority, Justice Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design." While dissenting Justice Scalia noted that "If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."

Oregon's law requires that a person be at least 18 years old, a resident of Oregon, capable (defined as able to make and communicate health care decisions), and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. After a specific seven steps, a physician may prescribe a lethal dose of "medication". The doctor must report the prescription and the Department of Human Services must collect and publicly distribute data in accordance with legislation passed in 1999.

Briefly, I am disappointed in the Court's ruling. While, on the whole, I am glad for this debate--it has done some real good in terms of palliative care--the idea of medicating people to death does not strike me as the most ethical of positions. My stance is pretty simple: if medications happen to cause or speed up the death process in the act of helping or improving (life-giving) a patient's ability to cope with illness or injury, then the doctor has done his job as well as he or she can. This is particularly true in relation to pain medications. On the other hand, intentionally shortening life through the use of drugs leads to the belief that, in some situations, some lives are not worth living. Allowing death and hastening death are two very distinct positions. Medications, by definition, are used to help a person, a substance used in therapy; intending to kill someone is not therapy.

It appears that, once again, the people of Oregon will be required to deal with this issue as, perhaps, it should be.

"That's not racial."

You know things are bad when Black Democrats start calling Black Republicans "Sambo". Apparently, it's OK to point out "the obvious" fact that conservative Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who is running for a seat in the U.S. Senate, is an "Uncle Tom".

Pardon me while I pick my lower jaw up off the floor.

Catholic High School Teacher Forced Out over Flag

This summer, Stephen Kobasa, a teacher at Kolbe Cathedral High School, a Catholic high school in Bridgeport, Connecticut, was forced out of his job because he refused to have an American flag in his classroom. "Everything in the Gospel rejects what flags stand for: boundaries, hatreds, creation of enemies," Kobasa says. "For a Catholic Christian school that holds up the crucifix as a symbol of God's love, the flag can only be a contradiction. The Church can only function with its prophetic voice by standing outside the state."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with his entire assessment--especially "hatreds, creation of enemies"--but I do sympathize with Kobasa's point of view. There's something unsettling about a flag-waving church. Don't get me wrong: I'm awfully glad to be living in the United States. I feel that this country truly was God-inspired, but I can also see where Kobasa is coming from.

Christianity is about bringing people into the Kingdom of God. We, Christians, are sons and daughters of Christ, and "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28). We are neither American or German, Chinese or Angolan and our first responsibility and our loyalty should be to the Kingdom of God first and foremost. We cannot serve two masters, God and money or God and country. While we operate in the world with both money and country, there are some obvious (or maybe not so obvious) difficulties involved.

That said, just to be clear here, I see nothing wrong with honoring our country, its myths, symbols, military personnel, etc.. Even actively participating in politics should be one of the ways in which we witness the truth of Christ's love and life in us. Finding ways of recognizing the importance of earthly citizenship during times of high patriotism while remembering our spiritual commitments takes some work; I can attest to this!

I'm afraid I come down on the fence when it comes to making public pledges of allegiance to any earthly institution. I certainly don't disparage anyone who take such oaths and I certainly can understand that there may be situations where refusing to display symbols or take a pledge that would offend the conscience. In Kobasa's case, I cannot pass judgment on either side; both obeyed their conscience (I will assume).

High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide

Seems we're at it again. Attorney General Gonzales has taken up where Ashcroft has left off, seeking to weaken the Oregon Death with Dignity Act at the Supreme Court. Arguing that doctors do not have the right to prescribe federally controlled substances for the purpose of causing death, Gonzales is not seeking to overturn the law, per se. Rather, he seeks to establish who has the right to regulate certain drugs.

Frankly, the legalities of this boggle my mind. On the one hand, I certainly agree with Gonzales on this: states shouldn't be allowed to change federal guidelines on drug use. On the other hand, it seems to me that the only ethical use of drugs is to make people more comfortable, reduce symptoms, and, if possible, eliminate or slow the progression of disease. It certainly will be interesting to see how our new Chief Justice handles this case.

Simon Wiesenthal

At the ripe old age of 96, Simon Wiesenthal has passed away today. "I think he'll be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust. In a way he became the permanent representative of the victims of the Holocaust, determined to bring the perpetrators of the greatest crime to justice," says Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

It's with a heavy heart that I hear this news today. Mr. Wiesenthal was a major influence and inspiration to me, both professionally and personally. For nearly sixty years (I think he officially stopped looking for hidden Nazis in '93), Wiesenthal has done the right thing. He decided to act, not out of self-pity or self righteousness, but rather because he continued to cling to possibility of God's existence. He, in the words of Emil Fackenheim, refused to "hand Hitler a posthumous victory" by turning his back on his faith, despite the horrors he witnessed, the trials he faced and the ridicule he endured.

Shock and Awe

I love the quote from John Updike, found over on Heigh-ho:

Our brains are no longer conditioned for reverence and awe. We cannot imagine a Second Coming that would not be cut down to size by the televised evening news, or a Last Judgment not subject to pages of holier-than-Thou second- guessing in The New York Review of Books.

It's true; it takes something like Katrina to really get our attention, doesn't it?

We live our lives under the delusion that we humans have total control over our circumstances. The comforts of modern life insulate us. Science can comfort us with elaborate explanations, predictions and cures. The law and Homeland Security will make sure we're safe. Our pastors, professors and politicians will hand down to us The Truth. But when something like Katrina hits, we see how thin that veil really is and we are left shocked by what have lost and awed by the powers that can sweep it all away.

When the something bigger, the government, our education, our strength and resourcefulness or even the All Mighty Dollar, gets swept away, what are we left to rely on? Jesus said,

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21

We are only shocked when we treasure those things that can be swept away.

Katrina Kills Philosophy

This really isn't the time to be philosophical. When you see the destruction that Katrina layed on the Gulf Coast, it seems like the only response is silent awe. What can you say when the living are so concerned with staying alive that dealing with the dead is the very last thing on anyone's mind? What good is a carefully constructed philosophical argument at this time?

I watched in rapt horror last weekend and early Monday as Katrina took aim at New Orleans. Even now, I don't think I was doing much deep contemplation of theodicy or the nature of God's love. I am not even thinking about "Why?" this would happen. It's just too overwhelming at the moment. As with the horrors of last year's tsunami, it's easy enough for me to just be content feeling absolutely insignificant in the face of such uncontrollable forces. For me, this is a time to shut up, stop thinking and pray. Of course, there are more practical expressions of my compassion, contributing to the Red Cross and helping a neighbor head down to Texas as part of the relief effort, but words seem absolutely ineffectual.

To answer my second question (what good is a carefully constructed philosophical argument at this time?), I would say this: while talking theodicy at the time of such a disaster seems petty and foolish, having a strong sense of the world that includes unreasoning disasters before they occur is the only way to effectively deal with them. For example, it struck me as odd when people would ask after 9/11: "Where was God?" To me, this only showed that they had not considered the possibility that God could be some place awful . . . at any rate, I grow philosophical here . . .

Ethical Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Biologists have made a major breakthrough in stem cell research. Apparently, they can "reprogram" normal, adult skin cells, fusing them with an "existing, laboratory-grown embryonic stem cell." While the new cells are not, technically speaking, stem cells, they do behave in most respects just as any other undifferentiated stem cell. In theory, this should eliminate the need to destroy existing embryos and avoiding certain ethical questions.

At this stage though, viable embryos are still required for further research. "Although the embryonic stem cells that we made contain the patient's genes, they also contain the embryonic stem cell genes that we started with," research team member Kevin Eggan said. "And for the time being that's going to interfere with the usefulness of this."

It's also going to interfere with the much anticipated ethical clean slate. National Geographic wonders: No More Need to Destroy Embryos? "Maybe" in the "future."

Dobson likened embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments

On August 3rd, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was discussing the current debate over the use of embryonic stem cells. In one statement, he likened embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments, saying:

You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.

While I heartily agree that embryonic stem cell research represents a serious moral failure, Dobson's analogy breaks down. This may seem a small thing, but worth pointing out. The horrors of the Holocaust were only the final step, the "Die Endlösung"; embryonic stem cell research only represents one small step toward something worse. (Which, of course, is not to suggest that is not bad on it's own merits.)

The experiments done by Dr. Josef Mengelle, Friedrich Mennecke, etc., had very little to do with causing any "good". Almost none of these so-called experiments were designed in any real way to gain scientific knowledge beneficial to mankind as a whole. They were designed to see how best to kill someone and what the effects of particular death-dealing procedures would be. Secondly, embryonic stem cell research (and the procedures designed to gather the cells in the first place) are nothing like Auschwitz or even Hadamar where the goal was to kill as quickly as possible rather than do legitimate research.

Bear in mind, I am a firm believer in the slippery-slope theory; what happened in Germany in the 1920's, 30's and 40's happened because small, unsound "wedges" were inserted into otherwise sound moral reasoning. People in Weimar Germany allowed many small steps toward Auschwitz, without really examining the path they were on. True, they always felt that they were heading in the right direction, but never really understood. History is full of people who honestly believed they were doing good but, come to find out, their struggle only allowed for evil. This is where Dr. Dobson is correct; while the Nazis never committed moral outrages because they wanted to help mankind (well, if you follow their logic they did, but that's another story), they did commit horrors on a grand scale because of the smaller steps which lead up to Auschwitz. He is also correct, in my view, in stating that embryonic stem cell research represents a "wedge" in our culture. When we get to point where helpless humans, or, more accurately, humans that have a very small political voice of their own, can be sacrificed to potentially help other humans with a stronger political voice, we should always worry. I'll leave you with the words of another fine researcher, Harold Kaplan, from his book, Conscience and Memory: Meditations in a Museum of the Holocaust:

When people say "never again" as their chief lesson from the Holocaust, we are at a loss. What is to be never again? And then to treat the Holocaust as some indecipherable horror and mystery . . . is to put "never again" at a total impasse. Those who say "never again" speak of the final result, the "solution." That comes too late for such a vow. The question is, Where, at what point in the Nazi series of crimes, does the "never again" begin to apply?

The first sin was not the gas chambers, of course. . . . We understand that all human rights are connected that a Holocaust is only the last stage of their loss. (pp. 9-10)