Theology and Genetic Engineering: New incarnation of the old conflict?

In Ulf Görman, Willem B. Drees & Hubert Meisinger (eds.), Studies in Science and Theology, vol. 9(2003–2004), Lunds Universitet, Lund. pp. 127–143 (2004)

It is widely acknowledged among science˗and˗theology thinkers – or at least desired – that we have left behind the era of conflict between science and religion. An approach which avoids conflict by pointing out that science and religion employ two different methodologies and therefore occupy two separate magisteria, is, however, unsatisfactory for both – the advocates of a fruitful dialogue between these two realms of human activity as well as the most vigorous opponents of possible conciliation, and the latter still speak of unavoidable conflict. One of the most widely known examples of a conflict between science and religion is the Galileo's case. It can be shown that in the clash between Galileo and the theologians of the time, the latter were right from the point of view of scientific methodology while they were wrong as far as their theological views are concerned. Does this lesson from the history imply any solutions in contemporary disputes over certain scientific achievements? Is it – for instance – a theological fault to impose some constraints on scientific research in genetic engineering? The ‘typology’ of errors committed in the Galileo’s case, offered in the paper, serve as a basis for answering these questions. In the paper it is suggested that a meta-theoretical approach to the interdisciplinary research, which shows the difference between the merits of given disciplines (in this case: science and theology) and the worldview they contribute to together, allows the acknowledgement that contemporary reservations with regard to genetic engineering and techniques are not in danger of committing a 'Galileo case type' error. It is suggested, that such reservations may stem from other than purely ethical opinions, which opens up an interesting field for discussion between those who do not share the same ethics, by leaving ethical arguments aside in discussions about biotechnology.
Keywords biotechnology  genetic engineering  Galileo Galilei  copernicanism  heliocentrism  science & religion  separation  conflict  NOMA  antirealism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,330
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Biocentrism and Genetic Engineering.Andrew Dobson - 1995 - Environmental Values 4 (3):227-239.
Heretics Everywhere.J. Aaron Simmons - 2010 - Philosophy and Theology 22 (1/2):49-76.
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research in Estonia.Professor Arvo Tikk - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):317-318.
Ethical Limits to Domestication.P. Sandøe, N. Holtug & H. B. Simonsen - 1996 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9 (2):114-122.


Added to PP index

Total views
75 ( #118,405 of 2,291,064 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #303,879 of 2,291,064 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature