The Wife of Onan and the Sons of Cain

Not long ago, I flew to Los Angeles for a major international conference on the study of religion, a Mammutkongress as a German report later described it, in which a dozen scholarly societies from around the world gathered to address the theme “Religion and the Humanization of Man.” During the flight west I chanced to meet a fellow passenger who was a specialist in the neurophysiology of sexual attraction. He asked me about changes in the sexual morality of the churches and related matters. But I was brought up most sharply when he asked whether our conference would consider in any way the humanization of man by genetic modification. This indeed was not on the agenda, and the gravity of the omission taught me more than I learned in the conference itself.

An expert in comparative religion once observed that relations are usually quietest between religions that have least in common—like Christianity and Buddhism—and most acrimonious between religions that have most in common— like Christianity and Islam. Something similar obtains, it seems to me, in the relationship of religion to the humanities, on the one hand, and to natural science, on the other. Religion can quarrel with the humanities because they have a common language. But there is no common language for religion and natural science, and there is very little talk. Itisasa result of this silence that religion so often finds itself struggling with a delayed impact of advances in natural science and the related technology.

JM

About the Author

John A. Miles Jr.

Featured Tags

Not long ago, I flew to Los Angeles for a major international conference on the study of religion, a Mammutkongress as a German report later described it, in which a dozen scholarly societies from around the world gathered to address the theme “Religion and the Humanization of Man.” During the flight west I chanced to meet a fellow passenger who was a specialist in the neurophysiology of sexual attraction. He asked me about changes in the sexual morality of the churches and related matters. But I was brought up most sharply when he asked whether our conference would consider in any way the humanization of man by genetic modification. This indeed was not on the agenda, and the gravity of the omission taught me more than I learned in the conference itself.

An expert in comparative religion once observed that relations are usually quietest between religions that have least in common—like Christianity and Buddhism—and most acrimonious between religions that have most in common— like Christianity and Islam. Something similar obtains, it seems to me, in the relationship of religion to the humanities, on the one hand, and to natural science, on the other. Religion can quarrel with the humanities because they have a common language. But there is no common language for religion and natural science, and there is very little talk. Itisasa result of this silence that religion so often finds itself struggling with a delayed impact of advances in natural science and the related technology.