John Stapylton Habgood

Communication The Untidiness of Integration: John Stapylton Habgood The Untidiness of Integration: John Stapylton Habgood Kevin S. Seybold uring the Middle Ages, it was not Born in 1927, John Habgood was edu- Dunusual for theologians to study the cated at King’s College, Cambridge, where physical world. In fact, there was an he read natural sciences specializing in amazing lack of strife between theology and physiology. After earning a Ph.D., he became science at this time. One reason for this a demonstrator in pharmacology and a fel- cooperation was the large number of indi- low of his college at Cambridge. In response viduals trained in both theology and medi- to a mission effort in Cambridge, Habgood eval science. It was the medieval theologian converted to Christianity in 1946 and began who tried to relate theology to science and the life-long process of wrestling with his science to theology.1 Today, it is uncommon new faith, a process that is central to his to have a theologian also easily conversant understanding of what it means to be a 2 Kevin S. Seybold in the scientific literature. John Polkinghorne, Christian. Habgood eventually served in a Arthur Peacocke, and Alister McGrath are number of church roles, but maintained a well-known contemporary examples of sci- dedication to his family and the people of his Born in 1927, entists who later have been trained in parish (regardless of how large that parish theology and turned their attention to the became). He also wrote several books dur- John Habgood integration of the two. A less familiar exam- ing his years in the church, many of which deal with the relationship of Christian belief was educated ple is John Stapylton Habgood, who studied natural science at Cambridge and later lec- to science. at King’s tured in physiology and pharmacology there for several years. In 1954, Habgood took Faith and Uncertainty College, orders in the Anglican Church and rose The foundation for any kind of dialogue through the ecclesiastical hierarchy to even- between theology and science, according to Cambridge, tually become Archbishop of York in 1983 Habgood in Faith and Uncertainty, is trust in until his retirement in 1995. each other’s basic integrity and a willingness where he read to work together.3 There is, of course, a long This paper will review some of John history of just that kind of trust. It is in this Habgood’s (now Lord Habgood) writings, natural tradition that his approach to science and particularly those that refer to his vision of religion is to be found. The “conflict” and how Christianity and science are related. In sciences “warfare” language used by John William doing so, I hope to bring Habgood’s works Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the to a wider audience (particularly in North specializing in nineteenth century and too often heard in America) and to argue that his approach evangelical circles during the twentieth cen- constitutes a viable model for the integration physiology. tury is anathema to Habgood. Both science of science and religion. and religion are searching for truth, and Kevin Seybold is an ASA member and professor of psychology at Grove City both use similar forms of language in their College (Pennsylvania). An alumnus of Greenville College in Illinois, he received attempts to describe that truth. For example, his graduate training at Marquette University and the University of Wisconsin– metaphor and analogy are used extensively Milwaukee (Ph.D. in physiological psychology). His research interests include in theology (e.g., lamb of God) and in scien- hippocampal involvement in learning and memory, animal models of psycho- tific theorizing (e.g., billiard ball model of pathology, and the neuroscience of religious experience. He lives in Grove City, interacting particles). This metaphorical lan- Pennsylvania, with his wife Ginny and enjoys sailing and playing basketball. guage is inadequate in both disciplines; yet He can be reached at [email protected]. the use of these figures of speech serve the 114 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Kevin S. Seybold vital purpose of making something that is difficult to describe and understand more intelligible. Language also has its limitations. The natural sciences as well as the behavioral sciences and theology suffer from the limitation that all knowledge is interpretation, and the language in which the interpretation is given helps to determine the results.4 So, scientific data, no less than theological statements, are not removed from theory and the assumptions upon which those theories are based. Postpositivism refers to this as the theory-laden nature of data. I think Habgood would concur with the belief of many Christians that the Bible must be interpreted in light of societal and cultural factors present during Old Testa- ment or New Testament times. He also, I believe, would agree with the less commonly held position that empirical data are also subject to interpretation based on some level of social construction. Indeed, Habgood sees the very concept of nature itself as a social construction.5 In this, he is in agreement with Alister McGrath in his recent book on nature.6 John Stapylton Habgood fering. These problems for theology are due to the freedom inherent within the world to be itself. He explains: Natural selection provided a rationale for waste. The foundation for any kind of dialogue Intolerable problems confront a theology which ascribes all that happens in the world to the direct, between theology and science, according unmediated intention of God. But a world which is allowed to make itself, in order to develop the free- to Habgood in Faith and Uncertainty, dom to be itself, at least contains some explanation of why fragility and vulnerability are an essential com- is trust in each other’s basic integrity ponent of it. A complex mixture of competition and co-operation are the conditions for free creativity— and a willingness to work together. and free creativity is the basis of life … There can be no freedom without clash of interests. There can be no creation without destruction. There can be no life without death.8 The findings and theories of science can assist theology Integrating faith and practice, whether as a scientist, as it develops its doctrines. For example, Habgood sees in teacher, clergyman, or member of some other profession, Darwin’s theory of evolution an opportunity to clarify cer- is a struggle. Referring to the use of the Bible in discus- tain themes expressed in Christian theology. In addressing sions of contemporary issues, Habgood agrees that the the question why there are intelligent beings on Earth, Bible is relevant and “at the center of the tradition in which for instance, Habgood sees evolution as support for a all Christians live.” Nevertheless, he tries to make what he Christian position that God desired intelligent beings with says on these contemporary issues accessible to everyone, which he could have relationships. He writes: even those (or perhaps, particularly those) who do not start from a Christian world view. Habgood says that he Multiple connectedness, and the complexity which seldom quotes the Bible in such discussions or arguments goes with it, are evolutionary winners. So it is not because, while Christians will hopefully see the biblical religious prejudice which makes one say that com- basis for his arguments, non-Christians will find the quot- plex systems tend to ramify in the direction of ever ing “off-putting.” Using biblical texts for “proving argu- greater complexity, and that self-conscious intelli- ments about contemporary problems” can give “the quite gence is not an accident.7 misleading impression that there is some quick way of Concerning the issue of apparent waste within cre- short-circuiting the struggle to bring faith to bear on them. ation, Habgood again sees evolutionary theory as offering Christians are not in the privileged position of being able 9 an understanding of the necessity of “dead ends” and suf- to look up the answer in the back of the book.” Volume 57, Number 2, June 2005 115 Communication The Untidiness of Integration: John Stapylton Habgood A Working Faith which we live. However, Habgood believes “To make statements about God is poten- that humans cannot fail to search for the tially to say something about everything.”10 transcendent. There is, Habgood might say, This statement, found in the introduction of a kind of lure of the divine, a concept con- A Working Faith, suggests the unity that sistent with Alister Hardy’s notion of the 12 Habgood sees in creation and the impor- divine flame. According to Hardy, the Dialogue and tance he places on keeping the worlds of awareness of this divine flame is an element science and theology together. Dialogue of the fundamental nature of human beings cross- and cross-fertilization between science and and derives, in part, from the evolutionary religion work both ways; integration occurs process. fertilization along a two-way street. As an example of The more recent work of David Hay13 in this two-way communication, Habgood con- the United Kingdom, supports the idea that between science siders the role theology should play in children’s spirituality is not merely a cul- helping shape social, personal, and ethical tural construction, but emerges from biolog- issues. While scientists are appropriately and religion ical predispositions. Also consistent with careful about opening their domain to theol- this view is the empirical evidence for a bio- ogy, they live in the real world, and when logical basis for God beliefs suggested by the work both scientists are asked to make comments about research of Andrew Newberg.14 Newberg’s or are asked to help shape the important findings coincide with the recent report ways; issues of the day (e.g., human cloning), theo- from the Commission on Children at Risk logical (as well as philosophical, ethical, and which suggests that the human brain is orga- integration moral) issues also need to be considered.

Load more