Robert Wuthnow

John H. Evans

Gerhard R Andlinger Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion Robert Wuthnow

"For those who thought Mainline Protestantism was well on its way to extinction, this collection provides interesting—possibly even shocking—reading. It points to new life arising out of old structures and changing modes of engagement with the culture. The message the reader takes away is that while the future for this religious tradition will not look like its past, it has a future. The best book written lately on this topic."—Wade Clark Roof, author of Spiritual Marketplace: BabyBoomers and the Remaking of American Religion "An important contribution to our understanding of the public influence of mainline Protestantism. This well-written and expansive book reveals how socially, civically, and politically active mainline Protestantism continues to be in American society, contrary to much conventional wisdom. Yet it shows the mainline influence as having a particular character, different from that of other religious traditions. Mainline Protestantism has, without justification, been understudied lately. This landmark book puts it back on the map and will generate discussion and inquiry for years to come."—Christian Smith, author of The Secular Revolution "This important book provides a balanced, critical, yet genuinely appreciative analysis of the role of mainline Protestantism's public role. It is a stimulating and refreshing change from the mainline Protestant 'bashing' of the past three decades. In a time of increased calls for religious organizations to be involved in public life, readers will be helped to understand both the possibilities and limits of such involvement as the authors examine the practices and policies of the most publicly engaged of America's religious families."—Jackson W. Carroll, coauthor of Bridging Divided Worlds: Congregations and Generational Cultures "An essential book for anyone interested in the public nature and works of the Protestant mainline. The vast majority of American citizens believe that churches have a public role. But they disagree about what that role should be. Help has arrived."—Jean Bethke Elshtain, author of Jane Addams and the Dream of American Democracy "This book is a comprehensive overview of mainline Protestantism's contribution to the public role of religion during the last three decades of the 20th century. It provides a firm platform from which to guide our vision in the new millennium."—Donald E. Miller, author of Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium

Faith-Based Activism and the Public Role of Mainline Protestantism

The Quiet Hand of God

While functioning quite well for many years, the bioethics profession is in crisis. John H. Evans closely examines the history of the bioethics profession, and based on the sociological reasons the profession evolved as it did, proposes a radical solution to the crisis.

A Sociological View

The History and Future of Bioethics

Scientific breakthroughs have led us to a point where soon we will be able to make specific choices about the genetic makeup of our offspring. In fact, this reality has arrived—and it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes widespread. Much like past arguments about stem-cell research, the coming debate over these reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) will be both political and, for many people, religious. In order to understand how the debate will play out in the United States, John H. Evans conducted the first in-depth study of the claims made about RGTs by religious people from across the political spectrum, and Contested Reproduction is the stimulating result. Some of the opinions Evans documents are familiar, but others—such as the idea that certain genetic conditions produce a “meaningful suffering” that is, ultimately, desirable—provide a fascinating glimpse of religious reactions to cutting-edge science. Not surprisingly, Evans discovers that for many people opinion on the issue closely relates to their feelings about abortion, but he also finds a shared moral language that offers a way around the unproductive polarization of the abortion debate and other culture-war concerns. Admirably evenhanded, Contested Reproduction is a prescient, profound look into the future of a hot-button issue.

Genetic Technologies, Religion, and Public Debate

Contested Reproduction

For decades, the debate on human gene-editing has identified and agreed upon certain limits that draw the line between ethical and unethical territory: for example, applications for diseases are accepted, but not for enhancements. However, society keeps pushing the limits, as seen with the advent of CRISPR technology and the birth of the first genetically modified babies in China. John H. Evans rethinks how we discuss and debate these collective limits, which havelong been characterized as a slippery slope. He examines past, present, and future arguments, and argues which limits can hold and which cannot, before we reach the dystopian bottom.

The Human Gene Editing Debate

In 2018 the first genetically modified babies were reportedly born in China, made possible by the invention of CRISPR technology in 2012. This controversial advancement overturned the pre-existing moral consensus, which had held for over fifty years before: while gene editing an adult person was morally acceptable, modifying babies, and thus subsequent generations, crossed a significant moral line. If this line is passed over, scientists will be left without an agreed-upon ethical limit. What do we do now? John H. Evans here provides a meta-level guide to how these debates move forward and their significance to society. He explains how the bioethical debate has long been characterized as a slippery slope, with consensually ethical use at the top, nightmarish dystopia at the bottom, and specific agreed-upon limits in between, which draw the lines between the ethical and the unethical. Evans frames his analysis around these limits, or barriers. Historically they have existed to guide scientists and to prevent the debate from slipping down the metaphorical slope into unacceptable eugenicist possibilities, such as in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World or the movie Gattaca. Evans examines the history of how barriers were placed, then fell, then replaced by new ones, and discusses how these insights inform where the debate may head. He evaluates other proposed barriers relevant to where we are now, projects that most of the barriers suggested by scientists and bioethicists will not hold, and cautiously identifies a few that could serve as the moral boundary for the next generation. At a critical time in this new era of intervention in the human genome, The Human Gene Editing Debate provides a necessary, comprehensive analysis of the conversation's direction, past, present, and future.

"Academics have long claimed that the relationship between religion and science concerns knowledge of the physical world, and that conflict ensues because religion has one way of knowing and science another. For example, it is claimed that to find the age of the Earth religious people look to holy scripture and scientists look at the age of rocks. This book shows that this is indeed true among the elites who focus on this debate. However, contrary to the assumptions of elites and public discourse in general, that same relationship and conflict does not exist between religious citizens and science. This book shows that regular religious people in the U.S. are at most in conflict over a few fact claims with science, and that this limited conflict does not lead to conflict with scientific claims writ large. More importantly, American religion has changed since the 1960s, de-emphasizing knowledge claims about the physical world, and becoming more focused on social relationships and thus morality. This book shows that any religion and science debate in the public is not about scientific claims about nature, such as the age of the Earth, but rather about morality - and opposition to the morality implicitly promoted by scientists"--Provided by publisher.

Recasting the Contemporary U.S. Conflict Between Religion and Science

Morals Not Knowledge

AcknowledgmentsIntroduction1. Framework for Understanding the Thinning of a Public Debate2. Setting the Stage: The Eugenicists and the Challenge from Theologians3. Gene Therapy, Advisory Commissions, and the Birth of the Bioethics Profession4. The President's Commission: The "Neutral" Triumph of Formal Rationality5. Regaining Lost Jurisdictional Ground and the Triumph of the Bioethics Profession6. "Reproduction" as the New Jurisdictional Metaphor: Autonomy and the Internal Threat to the Bioethics/Science Jurisdiction7. Conclusion: The Future of Public Bioethics and the HGE DebateAppendix: Methods and TablesNotesWorks CitedIndex Copyright © Libri GmbH. All rights reserved.

Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate

Playing God?

"The debate over what makes human beings unique has raged for hundreds of years, and many believe it is urgent to convince others to accept their particular definition of what it is to be human. Despite these dire warnings, nobody has empirically examined whether particular definitions of a human actually lead to maltreatment. In this book sociologist John H. Evans does and concludes that the definitions of a human promoted by biologists and philosophers actually are associated with less support for human rights. Members of the public who agree with these definitions say they are less willing to sacrifice to stop genocides, and are more supportive of buying organs from poor people, experimenting on prisoners against their will, torturing people to potentially save lives, and having terminally ill people commit suicide to save money. It might appear that the assumptions of critics are empirically correct. However, Evans finds that these critics are actually only partially right, and a detailed examination of the public's views reveals a much more subtle and complex situation. First, he shows that only a minority of the general public agrees with the definitions associated with less support for human rights. Then, he shows that the public has its own definitions of a human being that are unlikely to lead to human rights abuses. So while the critics are right about the definitions of a human promoted by academic biologists and philosophers, at present their concern about widespread maltreatment is overblown"--

John H. Evans

About

Books

Join the club