In Defense of the Amphibians: A Critical Appraisal of Engelhardt on the Recent History of Christian Bioethics

Abstract

Engelhardt argues that the correct interpretation of the marginalization of Christian voices in the recent history of bioethics is best explained as the acquiescence of Christian bioethicists to secularizing trends rather than as Christian bioethicists having been pushed aside by the philosophers who came to dominate the field. He identifies the origins of this secularization with natural law thinking, which he dubs as “amphibious” with respect to religious thinking and worldly thinking. I argue that this interpretation is incorrect. First, natural law thinking has been an acceptable mode of Christian moral thinking dating back to the Church Fathers. Second, any form of theology requires a philosophical framework, even one’s interpretation of scripture, so that there is no “pure” theology untainted by “worldly” reasoning. Third, Engelhardt’s account of this history commits the secular fallacy and strains credulity. Fourth, his interpretations of Ramsey and McCormick are idiosyncratic at best. By contrast, it is argued that in accepting Christianity one does not thereby reject reason and philosophy. Some guidelines for being “an amphibian”—for example, for doing natural law bioethics as a Christian— are proposed.