Criticisms of Atheistic Neo-Darwinian Ethics

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 25, 2010

Criticisms of Atheistic Neo-Darwinian Ethics

Atheistic neo-Darwinist evolutionary accounts of ethics tend to emphasize one of two features: (a) the survival of the fittest, or (b) co-operation. Thinking people should examine both accounts. Let’s do this in four steps.

1. Let’s first see what two prominent atheistic neo-Darwinists have to say about ethics in general.

Richard Dawkins writes: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” [River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix Press, 1995), 133; italics added for emphasis.]

Michael Ruse writes: “The position of the modern evolutionist...is that humans have an awareness of morality...because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I can appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbour as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.... Nevertheless...such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory....” [Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-269; italics added for emphasis.]

In other words, these prominent atheistic neo-Darwinists allege that there is no real right, wrong, good, or evil. Rather, our sense/ feeling of "objective morality" evolved into being because it produced survival benefits. Real right and wrong, real good and evil—these are merely useful fictions.

2. Let’s now look at the survival-of-the-fittest emphasis of atheistic neo-Darwinian ethics. On this view the right or good is whatever helps my group (or me) survive.

The problems with this view are obvious. If good and evil, right and wrong, are not real, i.e., are not in any deep sense true and binding on all, and if the governing principle of life is survival of the fittest, then it follows logically that genocide is acceptable if it promotes the survival of my group.

Also, it follows that ruthless imperialism is acceptable if it’s in my group’s interest. Also, it follows that ruthless egoism is acceptable if it’s in my self-interest and I can get away with it. In other words, might makes right.

But, surely, we know that, morally, might doesn’t make right. Significantly, this moral knowledge counts against the survival of the fittest neo-Darwinian view of ethics.

3. Okay, now let’s look at the co-operation emphasis of atheistic neo-Darwinian ethics. This is also known as tit-for-tat morality. The idea is that our sense of right and wrong, good and evil, comes from our Darwinian past in which reciprocal altruism occurred: “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Morals arose from agreements (explicit or implicit). And agreements arose from our enlightened self-interest, to ensure our survival and allow us to get what we want.

Serious problems arise for the co-operation view, too.

First, the co-operation view discounts our deepest intuitions about real right and wrong as mere suggestions for living, i.e., as useful “rules of thumb,” which evolved. Second, it dismisses our deepest intuition about the intrinsic moral worth of humans as mere useful illusion. Third, once we are “enlightened” (i.e., once our consciousness is raised by our awareness of the truth of atheistic neo-Darwinian evolution), it reduces morality to enlightened self-interest (reciprocal altruism), which reduces to contractarian ethics (ethics by agreement).

But contractarian ethics are hugely problematic. Here are some of the problems: Nothing is really wrong except breaking an agreement (but that’s okay if you pay out); people outside the agreement (“social club”) are not morally relevant (unless they can provide tit for tat, i.e., reciprocate in some way in your favour or not in your favour); plus we end up with moral relativism (i.e., morals depend on our various “social clubs” or individual preferences, which means that obviously evil regimes and individuals are merely doing what is “right for them,” period).

[See my previous Apologia columns for additional criticisms of contractarian ethics and moral relativism.]

4. To make matters worse for atheistic neo-Darwinian ethics, both the survival of the fittest and the co-operation emphases have trouble accounting for high altruism (i.e., the virtue of self sacrifice). High altruism is alleged by some to be due to an evolutionary misfiring.

Misfiring or not, once we realize (in our atheistic neo-Darwinian “enlightened” consciousness) that the urge to self-sacrifice is merely an evolved instinct—i.e., just a useful evolutionary illusion/trick, nothing more—we begin to wonder whether self-sacrifice is virtuous at all.

But such thoughts don’t sit well with our deep pre-theoretic first-order moral intuitions (i.e., our moral-rational insights prior to succumbing to atheistic neo-Darwnian ethical theory). The neo-Darwinian explanation, which is a second-order ethical theory, must compete with the first-order moral experience that it purports to debunk—but the first-order moral experience isn’t easily dislodged.

In plain English: The atheistic neo-Darwinian theory of ethics threatens to explain away what we know morally, but runs amok philosophically because of what we know morally.

Atheistic neo-Darwinian ethics? Go figure.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

For additional thought

• Atheistic Darwinian evolution and ethics
• Morals By Agreement?
• Assessing Moral Relativism
• Assessing Moral Relativism, continued
• Is moral realism odd?

 

Atheistic Darwinian Evolution and Ethics

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 11, 2010

Atheistic Darwinian evolution and ethics

In my previous column I quoted serial killer Ted Bundy, who asked: "Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer?"

Bundy’s answer: It isn’t. In fact, according to Bundy, it’s not wrong to kill humans at all if it gives you pleasure, because morals are wholly subjective, i.e., just a matter of feeling or taste, nothing more.

On the blog version of this column, an atheist proponent of Darwinian evolution answered Bundy’s question as follows: “That's too easy, Doc. We evolved by preserving our species.”

This particular atheist’s answer is a typical response of many persons who are atheistic evolutionists. Here’s my reply (which I set out in my blog, worth repeating here):

I’m not convinced that it’s as easy as you say. I think that, yes, the value we place on human life would help us evolve (assuming an unguided, wholly naturalistic evolutionary process) by being useful in guiding actions that help preserve us.

However, now, once we realize that we have simply evolved (wholly purposelessly, by natural selection acting on genetic mutation) it would seem that we should also realize that standards of right and wrong, i.e., our values, are mere guidelines for the preservation of our group. That is, we should realize that ethics aren’t about an objective good that is deeply real or deeply binding; ethics are merely a set of helpful rules that culture has handed down to us to help us survive.

In other words, as atheist philosopher Michael Ruse writes, “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory.” So ethics, it seems to me, could vary from culture to culture, if the principles and values help a group or society, one way or another, to survive.

But things become problematic at this juncture. Enter: the evil regime problem that I mention in my column. That is, we end up having no deeply real good or deeply binding basis for disagreement with groups led by the likes of Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc. After all, they are merely doing what helps them survive. Their values primarily concern their survival, not ours.

Enter, too, the evil individual problem that I also mention in my column. That is, we end up having no deeply real good or deeply binding basis for disagreement with the likes of individuals such as Karla Homolka, Ted Bundy, etc.

Ethics, it seems, end up being reduced to personal preference and power, and we have no grounds for criticism other than our personal preference and power. Morality reduces to might makes right.

Phillip Johnson (a lawyer and Darwin critic) has an insightful comment that’s relevant here: “[M]any people have made an effort to build ethical systems out of an evolutionary background—one of the things that has evolved is the human need to form societies; societies need rules; we as rational beings can recognize the need for rules.

“You can even see how certain rules and standards like promise-keeping, for example, or parents caring for children, would enable a tribe to provide better and to do better in competition with other tribes. And so you can get a grounding for ethics in that sense in the evolutionary process itself.”

So far, so good. But Johnson quickly (and rightly) adds the following: “[T]he problem [with evolutionary/ survivalist ethics] is that while promise-keeping can be justified on an evolutionary basis, so equally can genocide, you see, because what genocide just is is the replacement of one gene pool with another. You wipe out the tribe down the way and your gene pool survives....”

It seems to me that we find genocide and serial killing wrong because we have a deep moral intuition (i.e., moral/rational insight) of the following objective truth: that people have real intrinsic moral worth. And I am very inclined to think that people in general, whether atheist or theist or whatever, can and generally do recognize this worth.

I have found that a couple of my good friends who are atheist/agnostic tend to agree with me on this. We agree that people have real intrinsic moral worth and deserve respect (i.e., shouldn’t be tortured for fun, murdered, raped, etc.); where we differ is in how to explain that worth. We differ on how to account for it, not on that it is the case. I tend to think it’s due to being made in God’s image; my atheist friends disagree.

My friends who are atheists/agnostics and I have a deep disagreement here, to be sure. But there’s also some very important common ground. I believe that this common ground allows us to work together and respect each other and others as we work to maintain and protect and encourage what’s good and excellent in our world.

Nevertheless, a philosophical problem remains, and its implications should be faced squarely. My belief that people are made in God’s image reinforces my intuition (moral-rational insight) that all people have real intrinsic moral worth. However, the atheistic neo-Darwinian view that people are accidents of a purposeless nature undermines and weakens the intuition (moral-rational insight) that all people have real intrinsic moral worth.

After all (and again), as the atheistic evolutionist Michael Ruse makes clear, “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory.” Ruse means that the intuition that people have real intrinsic moral value is false.

Shouldn’t the atheistic survivalist-evolutionary view, then, tend to favor, morally speaking, the fittest and strongest? Shouldn’t the atheistic survivalist-evolutionary view, then, reinforce the subjective pleasures (the enlightened self-interest) of the powerful?

In other words, the atheistic survivalist-evolutionary view seems to provide strong philosophical support for Ted Bundy’s subjectivist view of ethics. And this is troubling.

Please let me be clear. I haven’t argued that atheists are bad or cannot be good (in fact, most of the atheists I know impress me as caring, good people). Rather, I have argued that atheism—especially when wed to neo-Darwinian evolution—lacks the philosophical resources to lend credence to the moral judgment that some actions which violate or destroy people are truly bad and some actions which help people flourish are truly good.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

For additional thought

• Criticisms of Atheistic Neo-Darwinian Ethics
• Morals By Agreement?
• Assessing Moral Relativism
• Assessing Moral Relativism, continued
• Is moral realism odd?

Skepticism about Evolution

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, December 3, 2009)

Skepticism about Evolution
I am skeptical of (at least) one sense of evolution. To explain, I will do the following: First, I will clarify several senses of “evolution”; second, I will specify the sense of evolution about which I am skeptical; third, I will set out some reasons for my skepticism.

1. The word “evolution” has several meanings, which, for the sake of clarity and truth, should be kept distinct.

Evolution can mean mere physical change over time, as, say, stars “evolve”—i.e., change—after they burn for a few million years.

Or evolution can mean chemical evolution, that is, a coming together of non-living material stuff to form the first living cell.

Or evolution can mean common descent, which means that all organisms have the same ancestor somewhere in the distant past.

Or evolution can mean, as it usually does mean, neo-Darwinian evolution, which is to say that, after the first life has begun, natural selection operates on random genetic mutation to produce the various complex organs and forms of life we now observe.

Or evolution can mean a combination of all of the above.

Moreover (to add a bit more complexity to the issue), each of the above meanings of “evolution” or combinations thereof can be understood either theistically (i.e., as guided by the Creator who created matter and its properties/laws) or atheistically (as wholly unguided and undesigned).

Furthermore (to add one last wrinkle), “evolution” can also be understood in a much more limited neo-Darwinian sense, that is, as micro-evolution, which is natural selection operating on genetic mutation merely to produce small-scale changes in an organism’s development.

An example of such small-scale or micro-evolution would be the changes in the beak sizes of the finches Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands, changes which occurred as the type of available food changed. In contrast, an example of macro or large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution would be the production, via natural selection and genetic mutation, of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, and the finches themselves, in the first place.

2. I am skeptical of “evolution”—whether understood theistically or atheistically—when it means large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution, that is, when it means that after the first life began, the various complex life forms we now witness are wholly or primarily due to natural selection operating on random genetic mutation.

3. Why am I skeptical? First, I think that the arguments for large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution are not strong. Also, there are some claims from important scientists and philosophers, claims about large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution, claims that push me further in the skeptical direction:

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature…that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press, 1996, 2006). Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania.

“We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell (Oxford University Press, 2001). Harold is emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University. According to Oxford University Press, Harold is “one of the world’s most respected micro-biologists.”

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This is from a 2008 document titled “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” signed by 700 highly credentialed scientists. The list of scientists who signed this document can be found at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (click on "Dissent from Darwinism").

The Center for Science and Culture adds: “The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.”

So, is it reasonable to be skeptical about large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution? I am inclined to think so.

P.S. I am inclined to think that it’s also reasonable to be skeptical about unguided chemical evolution, i.e., the purely accidental coming together of non-living material stuff to form the first living cell. But this is a topic for another column. See for starters my column “DNA & Intelligent Design” (March 26, 2009). See too Stephen C. Meyer’s recently published book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009).

P.P.S. For a fine debate between a highly-respected scientist and defender of large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution (Francisco Ayala) and a highly-respected philosopher and proponent of intelligent design (William Lane Craig), I encourage readers to check Apologetics315.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College. Van der Breggen’s views do not always reflect the views of his colleagues at the college at which he teaches. Some colleagues are young-earth literal six-day creationists, some are theistic evolutionists, and some are intelligent design proponents. Nevertheless, all are disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.)