Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter captioned “Science in itself is morally and ethically neutral” (08.02.25) by M. Xiu Quan-Balgobind-Hackett.

Mr Hackett once again conveniently misread my letter in suggesting that I was against using “tools and techniques that can alleviate human suffering.” Certainly we must use all scientific means – provided they are moral – to alleviate suffering.

I think it somewhat arrogant and condescending for Mr Hackett to blindly refer to those who disagree with him as “a non-democratic cabal of doddering old ecclesiastical celibates”. One doesn’t refute the genius of others by calling them names but rather by demonstrating how they have gone astray. This Mr Hackett cannot do.

Mr Hackett asks the all important question “who determines moral limits?” but fails to answer his own question except to invoke the need for “peer review”. Who is this so-called peer group upon which mankind should rely if not God who has all the answers? Mr Hackett calls into question God’s ability to circumvent his own laws of Nature but doesn’t demonstrate upon what superior authority he relies for saying this..

Mr Hackett further misquotes me in claiming that I evinced “a simplistic miscorrelation that science is linked with destructiveness.” Obviously science can be used for good or evil as Mr Hackett claims. Nonetheless, it is a fact that while science has the ability and power to destroy all mankind it does not have the same foresight and present power to cure every human being of their illnesses. Mr Hackett may not like suffering but is forced to deal with it nonetheless.

Any position that seeks to separate faith from reason so as to make faith subject to reason betrays an incomplete understanding of man’s existence and purpose. Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.

When human interests and values are based on reason alone, apart from the truth that transcends them, the individual and his human rights, dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization are at the mercy of caprice. Such persons end up judging by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. All of life’s mysteries are then reduced to problems that must be solved commensurate with the human mind that has posed them.

However, beyond man’s intellectual ability to solve problems there are mysteries that engage not only the mind but also the heart, body, and whole being. They do not challenge us to master their complexity. Rather, with a sense of reverence and awe they invite us to marvel in contemplation at their core simplicity.

It is an attestation of philosophical pride to suggest that among the many systems of philosophical thought, secular humanism alone stands as the complete reading of all history. It is even more presumptuous to consider God as a dead end response to the beauty of nature and the kindness of human beings towards one another.

The tragedy with secular utilitarian humanism is that it wilts under the weight of so much knowledge that eventually it loses its capacity to rise to the truth of being.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Kokoski