현대과학의 신학적 인간 이해에 대한 도전

Abstract

Sciences and technologies are rapidly advancing in today’s world. They not only give us efficiency and convenience in our daily life, but also give great challenges to our theology and understanding of humanity. This paper surveys some of the results of contemporary scientific researches like evolution of selfish genes, sociobiology, cognitive-neuroscience and life science and gathers the challenges those sciences issue to theological understanding of humanity. Then it seeks theological ways of responding to such challenges. It briefly introduces Richard Dawkins’ assertion of ‘selfish genes’, Edward O. Wilson’s ambitious attempt of sociobiological explanation of social human behaviour including morals and religion. They insist that human altruistic behaviors are in fact selfish behaviors from the perspective of genes. Their researches present questions of human dignity as the image of God, the possibility of moral freedom, and the altruistic nature of human behavior. While this paper appreciates certain insights of those researches, it critiques their seemingly scientific but quasi-philosophical or quasi-religious assertions and maintains the need of theological understanding of human being. This paper also briefly introduces contemporary neuroscience and the challenges they give to theological anthropology. It specifically pay attention to the science-religion dialogue jointly conducted by Vatican Observatory and Center for Theology and Natural Sciences in Poland, 1998. The development of recent neuroscience makes it possible to explain human mental phenomena in terms of biochemical and electrical changes in our brain. Many scientists think that all human mental behavior can be reduced to physical things in the brain. Francis Crick even suggest the astonishing hypothesis that human being is nothing but a bunch of neurons. This presents questions of moral freedom, the existence of human soul, the salvation of human soul etc. While this paper critically appreciates the holistic understanding of human being, rather than dualistic understanding, it still criticizes reductionism, questioning whether reductionistic explanation is really sufficient for explaining human mental behavior, especially freedom of moral and religious decision. This paper introduces non-reductive physicalism and the concept of supervenience of Nancy Murphy and the suggestion of emergent supervenience of Philip Clayton as plausible options. This paper also briefly deals with recent studies of life-science. Scientists found out that DNA of all living beings are consisted of the same basic chemicals, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine. They were successful in figuring out all human genes by the famous Human Genome Project. They also found out that there is little difference between genes of human being and chimpanzees. About 98.5% of them are the same things. What then is the real difference? What is the essence of human nature? Scientists are now able to produce animals not by natural reproduction process but by body-cell cloning. They are now seeking to clone human body cell by changing the nucleuses of eggs. Most of them say that their purpose is not to clone human beings but to get stem cells which are useful for therapies of diseases difficult to heal, by providing fresh new organs. This causes serious problems. The cloned body-cell comes to have the same nature as a fertilized egg. It has all the possibility to become an adult human being. In a sense it is a human being already. Is it alright to cut a necessary part of an embryo (for a therapeutic purpose) and kill the embryo? However, many scientists do not regard it as a human being in its early period. For them it is just a medically useful cells. It is a hot issue from what time we have to see it as a individual life. Scientifically and theoretically speaking, the related technologies may open the ways to all kinds of dreadful things: human cloning, designer baby, mass cloning of human bodies with desired natures, making of cyborgs ets. What are their identities? Are they human beings? What about the discrimination of the new races? Is it not a challenge to divine sovereignty upon human lives? It is very difficult to deal with all these issues. This paper suggests the application of the four models of Ian Barbour in relating science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. We find that there is no clear-cut answer to all of these problems. It is hard to apply just one model to all situations and we need to apply different models in different situations. In some areas we need to appreciate the results of new scientific researches and may find consonance between science and theology. In some areas we may have to reshape our theological understanding of human being, in consideration of the new scientific foundings. In some other areas we have to challenge the endeavors and thoughts of contemporary scientists and to help make laws and regulations to check the wild ventures of some scientists.