Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.
Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from. Dr. Collins thinks radical acts of altruism may defy an evolutionary explanation, or maybe not. Thus quoth BioLogos:
Even if a purely natural account of moral development could be found, the simple fact that morality has evolved is something that would be expected in a world created by a just and loving God.
On the contrary, it would be another indication that religion is superfluous in our quest to grasp the answers to life's ultimate questions. Dr. Collins merely holds it out as a possibility that an evolutionary understanding of moral development could possibly be solidified. But other prominent Darwinists seem confident, as Darwin himself was, that the evolutionary explanation is already in hand.
A recent forum "Evolution and the Ethical Brain" explored the issue in honor of Darwin's 200th birthday. You can watch the video online or read the transcript. It was sponsored by the opulently endowed Templeton Foundation, which by the purest coincidence also funds Dr. Collins's BioLogos. With New York Times columnist David Brooks leading the amiable discussion, three evolutionary scientists explored their conclusion that morality is a human capacity whose development is no more mysterious than the evolution of adult lactose tolerance.
Literally, lactose. The example was given by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Dr. Haidt also said at one point that "[A]s we know from domesticating animals, in a few dozen generations you can create a new species." Which is, not to put it too indirectly, an eyebrow-raising untruth. Nobody has ever generated a new species.
In any event, Professor Haidt's thesis, agreed to by his colleagues in the Templeton forum and by David Brooks, is that the moral sense is really just like the aesthetic sense. It may itself be a kind of aesthetic sense. You observe an action, find it morally pleasing or repugnant, then generate reasons justifying your gut-level response. Some moral instincts go back as far as mammals do. Others are more recent developments -- such as our "ideas about purity and divinity" which "are probably very, very new."
Nothing in Dr. Haidt's discussion points to anything transcendent behind those ideas of the pure and the divine. The same unguided, unplanned, unexpected process that gave many of us lactose tolerance also gave most of us a belief in God. The same process that gave each of us our individual tastes in art or food gave us our individual tastes in morality.
There may be hinted at here the broad outlines of a general body of moral guidelines. Some things -- well, most people just find them yucky. Like chicken-flavored ice cream, for instance. Or incest. But other things are just a matter of taste. In the same way that it would be absurd for me to judge your taste in music as somehow violating absolute norms, it would be absurd to judge anyone's moral ideas.
Most importantly, it would be absurd to judge yourself and your own actions by such a yardstick. How could a person ever justify telling himself no?
Far from my being unfair to anyone, these are inescapable extensions of the discussion at the Templeton event. From the perspective of theistic evolution, or BioLogos, I don't see how they can be avoided except by wishful thinking. This is the road down which the surrender to naturalism eventually leads. It is the road to relativism.
For a group of academics with tidy, functional lives, the message may be harmless enough. Their gut tells them to continue being productive, orderly members of society. Lucky for them. For much of the rest of humanity, the same idea -- Do what you feel! -- if it were disseminated and truly taken to heart, would be catastrophic.
Incidentally, see this smart comment by Carol Iannone at National Review Online on the hopelessness of reconciling Darwin and religious faith. Sincere, believing Christian that he is, Dr. Collins still fails to see this.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Does anyone have any idea why the mindless "island" links to a discussion about "cold fusion"?
I have never believed in it. Perhaps he's stupid enough to think that my joke on Pharyngula today about Ida (a lemur-like animal that has been dead for 47 million years) demonstrating a car that runs on cold fusion was serious.
If so, he's got more wrong with him than just his lack of intelligence.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Glen: Excellent posts, though I apparently disagree with you regarding God's existence.
The percentages aren't that high, as you point out, and I was aware of that. Of course, God's existence isn't established by polls, anyway. If all scientists believed in God, that wouldn't mean He did exist; just as if no scientist believed in God, that wouldn't mean he didn't exist. My original points were as follows:
1. The different rates of belief in different scientific disciplines indicates that it is incorrect that "science" in some generic way falsifies religion. Obviously the different perspectives of different fields lead, at least to some extent, to different views on the existence of God.
2. My point to David was that defending God's existence or interaction with the cosmos based on biology is a bad idea, since as you correctly say, the evidence for evolution is pretty much cut-and-dried. I pointed out that an argument for God's existence is better based on the cosmos as a whole rather than on biology.
On a side note about mathematicians, the greats such as Gödel, Cantor, and others spoke of the experience, when contemplating mathematical concepts, of dealing with things that were objectively real, though immaterial. They are thus not "invented" or "constructed", but found. Though on a far lower level than they, I have had that experience myself many times. In light of such experience (which for those who have it is one of great certainty), it is not at all hard to conceive of an immaterial Deity who can be known to us through means outside ordinary empirical methods. Not all mathematicians agree, of course, but I think this is the perspective of those who do.
Of course, strictly speaking, the existence of God can neither be "proved" nor "disproved". I do think it can be shown to be reasonable and likely, however.
I think that while science and the scientific method are powerful tools, they are just that--tools which are useful, but which do not encompass all of reality. Philosophical and other methods are equally valid within their sphere, albeit different. Those committed to the view that only the material exists, or to the view that the scientific method is the only criterion of truth (which view is better referred to as "scientism" rather than "science") will disagree with this, of course. It is in this context that in my original post I quoted Lewontin and Nagel, who were refreshingly honest about the a priori nature of their atheist beliefs.
There is another view, that of pandeism (pronounced pan-DEY-ism), which brings together all of these strands of thought into a cohesive spiritual viewpoint which is also scientifically and mathematically sound. Pandeism combines the most defensible aspects of deism and pantheism, holding that the Universe was designed by an intelligent and powerful creator (the Deus) which not only designed the Universe but in fact became the Universe, transferring all of its energy into the creation of the Universe and ceasing to exist as a separate being. In short, pandeism demonstrates that a deistic entity became what is presently a pantheistic Universe.
This is a Universe in which science is accepted as showing the true mechanisms of creation itself, and where the creator is held in such high regard that we are able to believe that it is not deceiving us through a creation myth that counters science, but showing us the truth through what science reveals.
Pandeism also offers a superior moral basis to theisms. In the end, the Universe will return to its original state, and the Deus will be reconstituted. Everyone and everything that has ever existed will continue to exist within that paradigm, and all will share the collective experiences of the Universe, including those resulting from their own conduct. Those who cause others to suffer will experience that same suffering, as they share in the experience. Those who give others joy will experience it likewise.
Another View: The idea you put forth is interesting--it seems similar to what Scott Adams develops in his book God's Debris. Of course, pandeism would be irreconcilable with any theistic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or others). Also, it is no more provable (or disprovable) than theism. As to whether it is superior to theism (or theisms), that is a matter of the temperament, taste, and beliefs of the individual. Some might find it more appealing, whereas others would not. In any case, an interesting post.
I think Adams has since said in interviews that God's Debris is intended as a variation on pandeism. Traditional pandeism has the Universe somehow return to being the Deus by collapsing on itself as it finishes running its predetermined course; Adams thought that humanity evolving into a reconstructed God was a faster route.
But does it matter whether pandeism is reconcilable with theisms? Relativistic mechanics is irreconcilable with Newtonian mechanics, but more accurately describes the Universe, so the former has displaced the latter. Perhaps it will be so with more advanced strains of religious thought overcoming more primitive ideas that fail to comport with scientific reality.
I would also observe that pandeism really encompasses and accounts for phenomena attributed by theistic faiths. All the miracles or revelations or answered prayers in the world could most easily be explained by a pandeistic Universe which is unconsciously responsive to the human will.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.