Wondering about Wonder

I’m setting down some thoughts on science and wonder for an upcoming talk at the University of Chicago and thought I would share them more broadly. Still in the brainstorming phase, but hopefully you’ll find them interesting. A tip of the hat to Mary Midgley’s Science as Salvation and David Noble’s Religion of Technology, two brilliant books on doctrine and dogma in science.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about what it means to promote science. I have many friends who promote science; some in the context of science-engaged theology; others as an alternative to theology; and still others in an agnostic way. For all three, I find myself wondering, on occasion, whether we’re all really pulling in the same direction. With that in mind, I’ve tried to set out a branching tree of thought that reflects a common starting point and some of the ways we diverge.

Because we use the words “nature” and “science” in a variety of ways, I’ve tried to avoid them. I write instead about the non-human world (NHW), empirical reasoning (a methodology) and scientific institutions (community standards and practices). For now, I take it that the NHW is the physical universe with humanity safely bracketed out of consideration.

NHW is not equivalent to nature. This is not an attempt to sneak in ontological commitments about humanity (either as natural or supernatural), but to ask what we can know before adding them back in. This is, by the by, the origin of the natural science vs. social science distinction. Nor is science simply empirical reasoning and scientific institutions. If you want to know more about what I mean by all these words and phrases, check out my book Thinking Fair.  For now, hopefully this gets you thinking.

1. We should pay attention to the NHW. I think just about everyone is onboard with this one, in theory. In practice, many of us get caught up in our daily lives and domesticated environments and don’t think about things like wilderness and animal rights.
2. We should value the NHW. A small but significant step further, this idea says that the NHW matters, that events at the borders of humanity have moral significance, and that what we know about the NHW should change our behavior. I still think most everyone is on-board, but they may be so in one of two significantly different ways.
   1. We should value the NHW because of current and future utility for humans. This is the extrinsic or instrumental value argument. Christians with a strong dominion theology (e.g., Francis Bacon) or who believe only humans will pass into the new creation lean heavily on this idea, that the world was made for our sake. White, Jr. famously critiqued it as anthropocentric and blamed that position on Christianity. Christians, however, do not all fall in this camp, nor is it limited Christianity. Secular humanist approaches to ethics that emphasize human preference, utility, or flourishing also tend in this direction and it undergirds most international treaties about natural resources.
   2. We should value the NHW as having ends of its own. This is the intrinsic value argument. Many Christians subscribe to intrinsic value ethics or theocentric ethics that speaks of non-humans having their own relationship with God and their own way of flourishing (e.g., Thomas Aquinas). It also appears in secular (but not humanist) ethics (e.g., Aldo Leopold). I take 2.1 to be nearly universal and 2.2 to be more controversial.
3. We should value the NHW because we can learn from it. Here we begin to get into more controversial territory, mostly around the sorts of things we can learn and the ways we acquire that information.
   1. Study of the NHW can answer “how” questions. This is the idea that the NHW can teach us about physics, bodies, and mechanical movements, the usual bread and butter of natural science. How does pressure on fingertips lead to nerve impulses that travel to the brain? How can I keep ants out of my kitchen? Fairly uncontroversial.
   2. Study of the NHW can answer “why” questions. This is the idea that the NHW can teach us something more about the significance of objects and events, how they fit into a bigger picture – structurally, historically, and operationally. Why do most animals have hearts? What do hearts do? This is more controversial, though I think generally accepted (that answers are possible, not necessarily how they are found). Interestingly, physics and chemistry are more easily conceived as focusing on how, while biology almost always requires some sort of why – for organismality (organisms are collections of parts with a common why), function (what that why is for a given part), and health (does each part serve its function).
   3. Study of the NHW can answer “should” questions. This bit is even trickier because it moves from explaining why to requesting (or requiring) that we do something as a result. Evolution and physiology can tell us why the heart functions without committing us to maintain that function. Many health questions push the line from “why” to “should” in this way. Should we ever end a non-human life? Most would say yes. We cannot avoid ending plant lives, and most people are willing to end animal life for human ends. Can we learn how to answer such questions from the NHW?
4. We should value the NHW because we can learn from it through science. Real disagreements start to arise here, because they have to do with how we conceive of science, particularly how it works, how well it works, and what it works for. What does “science” entail?
   1. Empirical reasoning – a way of knowing about world by appeal to observation and reasoning up from particular instances to general principles.
   2. Philosophical commitments associated with empiricism, such as commitments to repeatable observation, uniformity and lawful regularity, simple explanation, and thoughtful experimentation.
   3. Scientific Institutions – a way of regulating b through training, replicating results, peer review, and publication.
   4. Philosophical commitments commonly associated with the scientific community, such as treating things in the NHW as objects (passive, mechanical, and instrumental).

For my part, I’m quite sympathetic with 4.1, generally sympathetic for 4.2 and 4.3, and on the fence about 4.4. There are many other philosophical commitments commonly associated with science (including atheism and materialism). How many of them should we accept, and who decides? As for the narrow example I mention, I think that commitment to 4.4 rules out 3.3. It seems illogical to attempt to discover value using a system that removes value at the outset.

5. We should value the NHW because we can learn from it through science and anything we learn through science cannot be refuted by any other form of reasoning. Here I’ve completely lost the thread, myself, but I think this is a common position and worthy of discussion. It hangs critically on all the earlier distinctions, but particularly 4.1-4.4. Science is a particularly good way of knowing, but how does it relate to other forms of knowing?

I’ve noticed a particular strand of science-engaged theology that emphasizes “awe” and “wonder” at creation. I have friends for whom this is a recurring theme. My friend, Tom McLeish speaks eloquently and inspiringly on the topic. At ECLAS, we speak frequently of wonder and at science as a gift from God. I’m completely on board, but wonder (oddly enough) whether this gets the conversation stuck at stage 1, where there is almost universal agreement, both within Christian theology and more broadly in public discussion? The real disagreements are further down the chain.

On a similar vein, I’ve noticed popular discussion about “following the science” in politics. As a general statement, it sounds good, but what does it mean? Are we simply paying attention to the non-human world? Are we applying a particular methodology and care? Or are we doing attempting ethical heavy lifting along the lines of valuing human life – or non-human life – in a controversial way? I’m still figuring out my own views, but I’d encourage you to work your way through 1-5 and ask which ideas make sense to you and which do not. I’d love to hear from readers what they think in the