The Scientist’s Vocation

At a joint meeting of scientists and theologians, devoted to better understanding of one another’s work and to clarifying tensions between the scientific and theological disciplines, one scientist insistently repeated the question: “How can I, as a Christian, conduct my research to the glory of God? What must I do different than non-Christian scientists?” Because the main discussion was pointed another way, and perhaps because others were taken somewhat by surprise, the question remained largely unanswered—despite its repetition by the inquirer, once with the implication that perhaps one had better desert scientific endeavor if no clear answer could be given.

The question could probably have been differently phrased, but it needed answering. In a sense, the devout scientist has no greater problem than other Christians in any lawful occupation. Thinking Christians will always be concerned with the problem of relating their faith to daily life, of finding the best ways and means by which the Gospel may be reflected in their daily tasks. It is the old problem of letting the light so shine that the Father may be glorified. But strong feelings have developed over the years in some tension areas, and scientists who are Christians are sensitive to the problems which their discipline has created for theology. The more active and sincere their Christian faith, the greater is the urgency in their thinking on this requirement of their vocation.

NON-CHRISTIAN APPROACH

For the non-Christian, science is an empirical activity whereby one tries to enhance his approximation of what he thinks is a reasonable explanation of the world about him. The activity includes careful observation, creative imagination, hunches, trial and error, instrumentation, controlled experimentation, mathematical analysis, and logical deduction. For the most part, the endeavor is intellectually honest and is pursued by individuals for a variety of reasons—for example, to enjoy it, to effect some psychological compensation, to satisfy curiosity and reduce ignorance, or for prestige or remuneration. There are many reasons why most of us keep at the particular job or profession we prefer. But the non-Christian, since he is unregenerate, tries to suppress any thoughts within him that there is a Supreme Being, a Creator who transcends the material world, and who may not be truly known through avenues of knowledge which lead to empirical understanding of our world.

THE BELIEVER’S APPROACH

For the man who knows God and believes in his redemptive power, science is all of the things previously mentioned, plus something more. It is an activity whereby he increases his knowledge of God’s creation. He knows that this is a fallen creation, but he avoids the danger of considering it so corrupt that he cannot get a glimpse of the truth through open inquiry. Thus in his research he tries to increase, albeit indirectly, his knowledge and understanding of God.

For the Christian, such an outlook or starting point makes a great deal of difference. He realizes that his efforts in a particular science will be limited, that his methods are fallible, and that even the most rigorous experimental and statistical technique may be subject to valid criticism if appraised from some reference frame outside its own postulates. Furthermore, he knows that induction and deduction both have inherent limitations, and that models or theories developed from either mode of logic contain the cumulation of all original error plus errors within the theories themselves. Because no model or theory, therefore, ever fits all of the data perfectly, its service can be merely that of a map, a guide, or an approximation.

RELIABLE AUTHORITY

Realization of such limitations will cause the Christian scientists to follow one of the operational concepts of science, namely, that of reserved judgment and tentative conclusions. He will never knowlingly venture conclusions and generalizations that go beyond what the data permit. But he will follow the operational concept for an altogether different reason than does the non-Christian. The skepticism and caution of the latter are based on an inherent scorn for all authority. The former realizes that there is only one reliable authority, namely, divine authority. He will therefore tend in his theoretical projections to be guided by other criteria than the popular one which states that an hypothesis is good if it works. His hypothesis will be tempered by ultimate implications, if these are foreseeable. In so thinking, he is not only being a good Christian but realistic, for many are the hypotheses that have been workable but completely unconformable with the facts later discovered. In many cases such facts have been useful scientifically because they have stimulated further research. But the fine line between workability and representation of reality is often overlooked, and right here great harm has been done to the cause of truth and spiritual values, which are quite obviously the deep concern of the believing scientist.

Thus, scientific methodology and philosophy cannot always be neatly paralleled by the believing scientist. He considers his work justified by the biblical precept that whatsoever he does, he does to the glory of God; and he firmly believes that his vocation is honorable and pleasing to God because it flows from a regenerate heart committed to the service of God and man. His science will therefore be moral, not amoral, the latter being an avowed operating conception of non-Christian science. Yet, because his pursuit is moral does not mean he needs to moralize over every minor observation he records nor every conclusion he reaches. Such a procedure would stand in the way of effective work. Although science has more than once been accused of assuming some of the characteristics of a religious cult, its whole atmosphere discourages moralizing. Real scientific generalizations have a way of sifting themselves out and becoming established on their own merits. But the Christian scientist will seek to find the moral implications of his work and those of other scientists, and the norm which he applies in making such evaluations will be the principles of revealed truth.

In short, what the Christian scientist does is outwardly no different from what any scientist does. Both receive the same training, read the same instruments, apply and examine the same laws, and experiment with the same matter. If the methods of science are at all valid in their own realm, both will arrive at the same generalizations and laws. But there is an essential difference between the two because each will be working for a different reason and with a different purpose. The believing scientist is actually the better equipped because the Christian virtues of integrity and personal humility are his by deep conviction rather than adopted because scientific circles advise them.

A careful and considered answer to the question of the Christian scientist in his vocation is much needed in our day. Even agnostic scientists in the midst of modern research are asking for consideration of the moral implications before certain areas are fully explored. They have seen enough to have become cautious and even apprehensive. The beacon of scientific illumination followed by responsible moral behavior no longer shines as clearly as was once hoped. In the years to come, humanly speaking, the welfare of many will depend upon scientists who are more than scientists because they are conducting their research for a good reason and with an eternal purpose. Such scientists need an answer to the question, “How can I, as a Christian, conduct my research to the glory of God?” The answer can come only from Him whose handiwork they probe, and from his will reflected in the attitudes and research of those who serve him.

We Quote:

THE POWER TO TRANSFORM—“By no stretch of the imagination can I see Christ or the apostles placing the emphasis of the Gospel on social and political agitation. It is but a step from social and political agitation to legal action, and legal action must be backed by force and police action to be legal. Here is the trouble with present ‘integration agitation’—it looks to agitation rather than a change of heart. Are we seeking to run the business of the Church without the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit? The central truth of the Gospel is its power to transform human hearts by what Jesus did through His Cross, Resurrection, and outpouring of His Spirit at Pentecost.

“The greatness of St. Paul’s theology is that his heart always stayed close to the Cross and therefore his mind stayed on the track of God’s Truth. There is no guarantee that any theologian’s mind will stay on the track of Truth if his heart is not ruled by the Holy Spirit.

“Communism is essentially ‘man’s mind in control’—and relying on force because it has not the secret of changing human nature. Social and political agitation tend to veer in this same direction because it no longer trusts in God’s power to change the heart—and so it plays into the hands of Communism.

“If we really believe the Gospel’s power to radically change the human heart and behavior—because it has done just that for us personally—we will not readily rush off on social and political agitation tangents. And I believe the battle must be fought here: not so much by argument, as by determined passion to raise up and demonstrate a force of Christian people who are committed to changing the world by changing human nature.

“The Gospel is God’s property. We tamper with it at our peril. He will take in hand and correct or discredit those who try to change the Gospel that Jesus Christ bought for us at such great cost.”—The Rev. C. LEWIS IRWIN, formerly missionary to China and now pastor of the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, in a letter to U. S. News & World Report, May 9, 1960, p. 123.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.