Sexy Science? A Finalist for Key Topics in Science and Religion

Appropriately enough, this post arrives just the day before Valentine's Day. Science does in fact weigh in on what lies behind romance, and right off the bat, here's a timely article, "The Science of Love and Attachment."

The science of sexuality is also the second-to-last on my Top Eleven List of Topics in Science and Religion (adapted, by the way, from my book Negotiating Science and Religion in America) as I look at themes that are trending and that I plan to address in future posts.

#10. Science of Sexuality
At a conference a few years back on religion and science, I heard a colleague's work in which he analyzed the insights of science on our sexuality. He entitled it, "Sexy Science." 

That's not a bad title, and probably beneficial for future book sales (should his work become a book). Most important, it's not entirely off-base. Although we used to think science wasn’t that sexy, that’s changed. In fact, one of the unexpected results that arose in my qualitative interviews with emerging adults (18-30 year olds) is their conviction that sexuality, gender, and sexual attraction are clearly part of what science and religion need to consider.

In one of my hour-long interviews with an undergraduates on her views, Terry, who grew up Catholic, told me she had moved away from her family's religion because it didn't take in contemporary science. (You can read more about these interviews and the related surveys on religion and science with 18-30 year olds here.) 

And Terry put her own "done-ness" with Christianity quite bluntly: 

Sexual orientation "is proven in science that you don’t choose to be gay. Denying that makes you look ignorant.” Terry, 19 year old undergraduate

And this was not a stand-alone. But it was a surprise. In fact, one of the unexpected reactions to these interviews with twenty-somethings was that when I mentioned "religion and science," the response "sex" emerge frequently, probably as much as any other expected topic, like evolution, and certainly more than others I've discussed over years like, quantum cosmology and how the methods of science and theology interrelate. Put another way, topics previously considered secondary have become primary. And yet the themes of sexuality and gender, and particularly their relationship to science and religion, have not made it into textbook-length treatments of core issues in standard textbooks, because, most likely, these sources move more gradually.

I move to two conclusions.

My first conclusion is an observation: sex is a trending topic of science and religion because the importance is self-evident for emerging adults (18-30 years old). And we have to take in that fact. At the same time--and I've written a bit more about this elsewhere--I'm convinced that science should not entirely define this subject--or really, set of subjects that I'll put under "sexuality and gender"--like many other ethical or values topics. Good science should certainly inform, but not dictate, our ethics. And, I'll simply note here that bundled with sexual orientation is certainly gender identity and sexual ethics, topics that religions have certainly talked about and expressed their opinions.

My second conclusion is a set of questions: Are religious communities that reject gay and lesbian members or participants bigoted and scientifically ignorant? Will this tying of sex, science, and religion together make churches more resistant to engage for fear of controversy? What is the proper way to bring together science with biblical and theological convictions? And if we analyze why we are attracted to our valentine, does that steal away all the fun?

It is indeed a brave new world, but I believe we have already entered it, and we need to take in that reality. 

And one final note: That's the second to the last of my Top Eleven, briefly noted, and I’m confident that you’ll have much more to add on this particular topic!

Thinking Like the Devil's Advocate

Many don’t appreciate the role of “The Devil’s Advocate.” But that’s the part I’m going to play in this post. So it’s important to set things straight.

The first thing to grasp is that Devil’s Advocate or (Advocatus Diaboli in Latin) is a

Reeves as lawyer (or advocate) for the Devil (Pacino)
Not what I'm talking about here

technical position in the Roman Catholic Church. To clarify, I’ll let the online Catholic Encyclopedia do some heavy lifting. 

"A popular title given to one of the most important officers of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, established in 1587, by Sixtus V, to deal juridically with processes of beatification and canonization. His official title is Promoter of the Faith (Promotor Fidei). His duty requires him to prepare in writing all possible arguments, even at times seemingly slight, against the raising of any one to the honours of the altar."

And though I believe in the importance of integrating mainstream science with mere Christianity, I thought I’d think like the Devil for this post (and maybe the next one) and pose some demanding questions. They aren’t entirely a surprise, many make their way into Mere Science and Christian Faith and are part of my research for an upcoming book, Science and Religion in the United States: The Present State and Future Directions.

Nevertheless, what are the toughest issues facing science and Christian faith? Here are four categories.

1. Evolution: To paraphrase Jesus (cf. Mark 14:7), “Evolution you will always have with you.” In fact, it may represent an eternal hot button issue. (In fact, some say that by accepting evolutionary theory we may be placing ourselves in an eternally hot place. That seems to me like hyperbole.) Since I, listening to the consensus of mainstream science, don’t see this is a theory that has guided scientific research in a variety of fields for almost 160 years going away, I have a question or two. What does it mean to assert that God creates through evolutionary processes? What do we do with those who see this as contradictory to God’s creation? How does this make us, as homo sapiens, nothing entirely special in the animal kingdom?
2. Sexuality/LBGTQ: We used to think science wasn’t that sexy, now that’s changed. Whenever I talk about science with emerging adults, I hear the questions like, “Doesn’t science tell us that we don’t choose to be gay?” Is it true that the church that doesn’t embrace gay and lesbian Christians appears ignorant? 
3. Genetics: Let’s just take one example: CRISPER gene editing represents a powerful means of changing ourselves through gene therapies in ways that will affect future generations. Why not use this technology for the good? Why is the church standing in the way like they’ve always done? And in general, are we “nothing but” our genes? 
4. Cognitive science and neuroscience: Functional Magnetic Imaging Resonances (FMRIs) seems to show some fairly clear things about what happens inside our noggins. As the Harvard scientist Stephen Pinker asserts, “I want to convince you that our minds are not animated by some godly vapor or single wonder-principle.” Does science rid us finally believing there’s a soul? Is God all in our heads? Or even more, is my thinking and feeling—the components that make me—simply a physical process like digestion? 

This heads in a slightly different direction, but I like it...

The Catholic dictionary continues on the role of the Advocatus Diaboli, 

“The interest and honour of the Church are concerned in preventing any one from receiving those honours whose death is not juridically proved to have been ‘precious in the sight of God.’”

In closing, I sense deeply that I may be able to formulate some questions and a few responses, but the horizons are beyond my vision. I know I need colleagues on this journey. Even more, I hope that’s what I’m trying to do here as the Advocatus Diaboli for the integration of mainstream science and Christian faith. Let’s not declare honorifics on too easy resolution. Maybe this work is even precious in the sight of God.

What do you think? Are there tough questions about Christian faith and science that you’d like to post below?

Sexuality: When We Ask Too Much of Science (Part Two)

Last week I touched on climate change and the ways we ask too much from science.

With sexuality, we often ask too much in an almost diametrically opposed way. We demand that scientific studies tells us more than it’s able, believing that science can determine and not inform our ethics. This is another mistake of relating the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture (to use that well-worn analogy). But there are fundamental limits to what we can learn from the natural world.

In one of my interviews with emerging adults I talked with Tracy, age 19, who told me quite confidently: 

“It’s proven in science that you don’t choose to be gay. Denying that makes you look ignorant.” 

And I can assure that this position is popular with 18-30 year old (according to surveys and particularly in my conversations). Our genes fully determine our sexuality and sexual behavior. 

“The genes made me do it. and will always make me do it.” 

Whatever the “it” is.

But if our genes made us do it, then where is our moral agency for any action? These are questions that our theological and philosophical traditions have wrestled with for centuries.

It may be necessary to understand any genetic correlations with sexual orientation, but I believe that’s insufficient for our ethics, sexual or otherwise, and I call on the best ethical and biblical minds in the church to keep engaging these questions using science as a guide but not a dictator. How we end up on all this is not entirely clear. Put thought leaders like Rachel Held Evans, N. T. Wright, Jen Hatmaker, Tim Keller, and Rob Bell in one room, and I think there’d be more than one opinion. In fact, I’d direct you to any of their works for thoughtful ethical conversation about sexual ethics.

The point of all this is that the Two Books must be read as complementary. To respect their differences is to realize that they have different insights to share.

Where are you on sexual ethics and science? How much do scientific studies tell us about sexuality?