Archbishop's Journey: From Science to Faith
Episcopal News Service. November 10, 1983 [83209]
NEW YORK (DPS,Nov. 10) -- When John Stapylton Habgood started studying and teaching science at Cambridge University more than three decades ago, he had what he considers his first religious experience -- a realization that the kinetic theory of gases describes quite elegantly and accurately what the properties of a gas will be.
"It was one of the beautiful things that you are constantly finding in science," recalls Dr. Habgood. "An experience of beauty, of order and of mysteries revealed."
But gradually, as he earned his doctorate in physiology at Cambridge and became a lecturer in pharmacology, Habgood came to feel that something was missing in his scientific training. Science achieved its enormous practical successes, in his view, by narrowing its focus, dealing primarily with things that can be measured or weighed, and excluding human values as much as possible. "In science, you deliberately cut all the interesting human things," say Habgood, "so we are left with this hard, meaningless, valueless universe and we recoil in shock if we think that's all there is."
So Habgood abandoned a promising scientific career and switched to theological studies instead. He was ordained as Anglican priest in 1954 and climbed steadily upward in the Church of England, holding posts as curate and parish priest, vice principal and principal of theological colleges, and, for the last 10 years, Bishop of Durham.
Now, as Archbishop of York, the second-ranking prelate in the Church of England, he is perhaps the highest-ranking prelate anywhere with a professional background in science.
Few theologians or scientists in the modern world have a more profound understanding of the fundamentals of both science and religion or have wrestled as hard in their own lives to reconcile the conflicting dictates of these two bodies of thought as became clear when Habgood was the subject of a frontpage feature in the weekly science section of the New York Times recently.
Essentially, he considers science and religion two kinds of knowledge at opposite ends of a spectrum. Science is precise, articulate knowledge gained by asking only those questions that can be answered. Religion is groping, partial, inarticulate knowledge about the mysteries of existence, gained partly through personal insight in grappling with the enormous philosophical problems posed by the experience of being alive.
Religion often goes wrong, he says, when it tries to become quasiscientific, or to dispute science on its own ground by pitting Scripture against scientific discoveries.
But scientists often go wrong as well, he adds, when they try to apply their scientific methods to theological questions.
Habgood finds, for example, that many science graduates are theologically naive -- so determined to find clarity and certainty and evidence in their religion that they fall easy prey to fundamentalist theology, where Scripture becomes their data base and everything else is deduced logically from it.
Thus fundamentalism, the Christian theology most in conflict with science today, nevertheless attracts a surprising number of scientists as adherents, says Habgood, attributing this to their "desire for more clarity and orderliness than perhaps religion can ever give us."
Even the absence of direct conflicts between the doctrines of science and religion, Habgood believes science has indirectly undermined religion by helping people to solve problems with technology "rather than by kneeling down to pray about it."
Science and technology also shields most people nowadays from close contact with dying relatives or with the world of nature, he adds, thus depriving them of experiences that used to alert people to a religious dimension in life.
And modern technology, in the form of blaring radio and television sets deprives people of the silence and solitude in which many once found spiritual depth, he believes.
Habgood warns that scientific education can be a "narrowing experience" that can "impoverish a developing personality." But these narrowing effects are often mitigated, he adds, by the fact that "most scientists do fairly hack jobs in large commercial research establishments" where the work is so boring that they "humanize" themselves with outside activities in nonscientific spheres.
Although Habgood admires the success of science and "enjoys technology for its own sake," he believes it is dangerous to give scientists a blank check. Some areas of science he thinks, should be controlled for ethical reason, a view bound to disturb those scientists who believe in an unfettered quest for knowledge.
Habgood accepts in vitro fertilization to help a husband and wife to achieve a sucessful pregnancy, but he opposes sperm donors, surrogate mothers and long-term freezing of embryos because technology, in those cases, separates the normal loving relationship between two people from the act of creating a child. He calls such techniques "humanly and Christianly undesirable."
Habgood also believes that genetic engineering poses "grave problems for the future." He believes a good case can be made for using genetic engineering to repair defects that cause disease. But he is opposed to a "whole range of further tinkering" that might lead to "manmade human beings."
"This is where religious instincts rebel against too much power. Ultimately, religiously, our lives are in the hands of God"
Although he did many animal experiments at Cambridge and describes himself as "the only Archbishop who has held a vivisection license", he believes that there has been "unnecessary carelessness with animal life." Christianity itself "has not got a very enviable record" in animal protection, he acknowledges, largely because it concentrates on human value and tends to devalue animal life.
On nuclear power, Habgood concludes that the current fission reactors are acceptable but that proposed breeder reactors are not, because their fuel can be too easily used to make bombs. He opposes the neutron bomb, a weapon that kills while sparing property, because it would erode the psychology of deterrence. But he does not favor "unrealistic abandonment" of all nuclear weapons at this stage.
Habgood blames Christianity as well as science for environmental and conservation problems. Christianity, by teaching man's dominion over nature, encourages exploitation of resources, he says, whereas the current view among leading ecclesiastics and conservationists is that man should exercise a caring stewardship over nature.