|
Statement of conservative Darwinism
There is of course an ongoing, raging argument, or rather a war, between Darwinians (or evolutionary biologists as they call themselves) on one side and conservative theists on the other. Some conservatives have argued that Darwinism, since it denies God and any objective moral truth, is inherently nihilistic, and that it is therefore a contradiction in terms for a Darwinian to call himself a conservative. But is that view necessarily correct? Is it impossible for an intellectually honest Darwinian to affirm conservative truths and be an ally of conservatives and conservative theists? (Please note: I am not speaking here of the popular but absurd notion of “theo-Darwinianism,” the belief that God and Darwinian evolution are compatible.) Yesterday Alan Roebuck put together an excellent statement of what would constitute a Darwinian position consistent with, or at least capable of co-existing with, conservatism. Kristor then revised and added significantly to it, and I’ve also edited it. Here is the current version:
Statement of Conservative Darwinism
I acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is based on naturalism or materialism, and that materialism, because it rejects any non-material reality, is tantamount to atheism. I also acknowledge that if atheism is true, then morality and all higher meaning are either conventions that we can change if we want to, or else accidents of evolution, in which case it is doubtful whether we are obligated to honor them.
Nevertheless, I believe that Darwinism is a true description of the origin and development of life, or at least as true as is currently accessible to man. Despite the potentially nihilistic implications of embracing Darwinism, I believe that we must acknowledge reality.
However, it is also my belief that while human morality is in no sense absolute or absolutely binding upon us, it is the product of a long process of natural selection; that the human feelings of right and wrong, of moral obligation and duty, of fair dealing and proper behavior as a member of society, are the result of dearly bought, deeply tested, and carefully refined discoveries of our species over millions of years, and of our cultural forebears over the course of millennia. Our basic moral notions are thus grounded in and fitted to physical reality, in the same way that our sensations of vision and hearing are grounded in and fitted to physical reality. In this sense they are objective, and therefore authoritative. For these reasons I believe that traditional mores are not to be jettisoned lightly. Rather, it is prudent to conserve them as our default responses to changing situations. That is why I am a conservative.
But I also acknowledge that many people believe that an acceptance of Darwinism necessarily requires the leftist and nihilistic program that is often carried out in its name. And I acknowledge that this belief is not entirely without justification.
I further acknowledge that some of the anti-Darwinian beliefs have intellectual integrity. Since a theistic worldview has its own integrity, I cannot, in good conscience, regard it as false until such time as I have made a detailed study of the arguments.
Therefore, as a conservative Darwinist, I stand wholeheartedly with any person fighting for the conservative goal of a properly ordered American society in which traditional ways and thought are paramount, and I will regard anti-Darwinian conservatives as my brothers-in-arms. I will not attack them or impugn their motives on account of their anti-Darwinism. I will, of course, consider myself free to disagree with them whenever I believe them to be in the wrong, but I will not regard their anti-Darwinism by itself as a reason to suspect their intelligence or integrity, as Darwinists generally do.
Furthermore, I will understand that when conservatives assert that Darwinism leads to various social, intellectual, or moral ills, they do have an argument, and are not necessarily being bigots. I will therefore react to these assertions as one reacts to a brother with whom one disagrees, not as one reacts to an enemy.
I also acknowledge that the majority of proper conservatives are anti-Darwinists, or at least non-Darwinists. This makes me a minority in the conservative camp, and, as a conservative, I acknowledge the right of majorities to demand respect for them and their ways.
Finally, I will expect honorable anti-Darwinian conservatives to extend the same courtesies to me.
- end of initial entry -
April 8
Dana writes:
As one of your resident “evolutionary conservatives,” I’d like to say the statement is pretty good. I have two quibbles:
1) “But I also acknowledge that many people believe that an acceptance of Darwinism necessarily requires the leftist and nihilistic program that is often carried out in its name. And I acknowledge that this belief is not entirely without justification.”
The fact that “many people feel … ” is illogical and irrelevant and is without justification. Belief in evolution AS IT STANDS IN THE 21st CENTURY can NOT lead in any way shape or form to leftism. The left completely rejects any aspect of evolution past “man evolved from a monkey-like thing so there is no god.” Every aspect of leftism (blank-slate “nurture” theories, “equality,” feminism, homosexuality as anything but a defect or error, “diversity”) is refuted by Darwinism’s concept of biological human nature, which overwhelmingly supports almost all basic human traditions as stated earlier in the piece. If you read the left in its own words you will see there is no point at which actual scientific evolutionary theory comes up—only the straw man “evolution” of “progress,” by which they mean IDEOLOGICAL evolution of man as a political animal into some “new socialist man.” They NEVER mean biological evolution.
“Nihilism” is a simply a fancy weasel word that means “rejects the Christian/leftist” morality of duty and altruism. This is also not supported by evolution as current theory holds that man is a cooperative, hierarchical band animal who evolved to be most comfortable in related groups of 50-150 members and to behave altruistically towards his group for his personal survival and for the survival of the genes of people to whom he is related. What evolution rejects is the concept that man BY NATURE feels a sense of duty towards some universal group called “Man,” or towards other races/ethnes etc. again, the opposite of leftism.
2) “I further acknowledge that some of the anti-Darwinian beliefs have intellectual integrity. Since a theistic worldview has its own integrity, I cannot, in good conscience, regard it as false until such time as I have made a detailed study of the arguments.”
As stated, this point begs its own first premise that a Darwinian hasn’t made a detailed study of the arguments of religion before selecting the scientific worldview. While it may be the case that kneejerk college “atheists” jump to that conclusion based on emotion and anger at religion for not letting them do whatever they want or at God for letting their hamster die when they were a kid—certainly the type of atheist and Darwinian conservatives who hang around the human biodiversity blogosphere has a detailed understanding of the religions of the world, their philosophical frameworks and belief systems. I myself have an undergraduate degree in religion studies with a concentration in Jewish and Christian scriptures and I spent most of my life in religious Jewish school. Most people who come to the scientific worldview in an intellectually honest manner do so after years of investigation and education—it’s a very rare worldview.
Otherwise, quite good!
Kristor replies:
This was an amazingly constructive contribution. Apparently we have much more in common with Darwinian traditionalists than I would have thought. The second and third paragraphs were simply grand. But I wonder how many atheists are as thoughtful and educated as Dana. Even among those atheists who are quite well educated in religion or philosophy, vanishingly few have actually studied—not just read about, but engaged, struggled with—the arguments for theism. Almost none have read Aquinas, Anselm, or Aristotle. Certainly Dawkins, Dennett, et al. do not seem to have done so. The reason it took so long for Antony Flew to convert to theism is that, until he was in his late 70’s, he had never read Aristotle’s arguments on the subject (!!!); as soon as he did, he changed his mind. And he is one of the foremost philosophers of religion of the 20th Century.
It would be great to get a real and friendly dialogue going at VFR between the atheist and theist traditionalists. The arguments from evolutionary biology against leftism are immensely strong. Most leftists don’t recognize any religious authority, but do definitely recognize the epistemic authority of science (except, that is, for the really lost souls like Rawls and his devotees, and the deconstructionists). The problem is, of course, that the leftists are not thinkers, but feelers. They pay no attention to economics; why should they pay attention to biology?
My first question to Dana and our other Darwinian traditionalist allies would go as follows. Does the following paragraph seem unobjectionable to you? Does it gain your assent?
I think human morality is the product of a long process of natural selection; that the human feelings of right and wrong, of moral obligation and duty, of fair dealing and proper behavior as a member of society, are the result of dearly bought, deeply tested, and carefully refined discoveries of our species over millions of years, and of our cultural forebears over the course of millennia. Our basic moral notions are thus grounded in and fitted to physical reality, in the same way that our sensations of vision and hearing are grounded in and fitted to physical reality. In this sense they are objective, and therefore authoritative. For these reasons I believe that traditional mores are not to be jettisoned lightly. Rather, it is prudent to conserve them as our default responses to changing situations.
If it does gain your assent, when then is your reaction to the following paragraph? Does it gain your assent? If not, why not?
I think that human religion is the product of a long process of natural selection; that the human feelings of the sacred are the result of dearly bought, deeply tested, and carefully refined discoveries of our species over millions of years, and of our cultural forebears over the course of millennia. Our basic religious notions are thus grounded in and fitted to physical reality, in the same way that our sensations of vision and hearing are grounded in and fitted to physical reality. In this sense they are objective, and therefore authoritative. For these reasons I believe that traditional religion is not to be jettisoned lightly. Rather, it is prudent to conserve it as one of our default responses to changing situations.
Paul Nachman, an atheist (who by the way is supportive of the role of religion in America and has argued against atheists who claim that America has always been a secular society), replies to the statement paragraph by paragraph.
Paul Nachman writes:
I acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is based on naturalism or materialism, and that materialism, because it rejects any non-material reality, is tantamount to atheism. I also acknowledge that if atheism is true, then morality and all higher meaning are either conventions that we can change if we want to, or else accidents of evolution, in which case it is doubtful whether we are obligated to honor them.
I suppose that’s right, that materialism implies atheism. I’m a bit hesitant though—did the Greeks regard their pantheon of gods as non-material, or as material-but-existing-elsewhere?
Yes, I agree about the implication that morality is a convention, but I don’t think it’s random and arbitrary in any society that can endure. That favorite recent video interview of Sowell [see here; transcript also available] included a line by Sowell about Oliver Wendell Holmes: “Holmes declared the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.”
I think that’s saying the same thing as my point of view: What can “work” is pretty much determined by the inescapable logic of evolution itself. (I don’t want to get into an argument about this “inescapability,” at least not now. But that is how I regard it.)
Nevertheless, I believe that Darwinism is a true description of the origin and development of life, or at least as true as is currently accessible to man. Despite the potentially nihilistic implications of embracing Darwinism, I believe that we must acknowledge reality.
Darwinism certainly is about development. But did Darwin say anything about the origin of “first life”? I’ve never really studied Darwin, so I don’t know.
I do think evolution is reality. Must we therefore acknowledge it? Mmmmm …. well, I don’t suppose it needs to be peddled, but I don’t think it should be denied. And I disagree that the implications are nihilistic—I really like that Holmes quote. (Here’s the quote, itself.)
Mmmm a bit more. “We must acknowledge reality.” Who must? Society? Even all the non-Darwinists in it? Better that we Darwinists should simply state what we think reality is; it’s not incumbent on society to acknowledge it. Then the question is, “What gets taught in biology in public schools?” I’ll leave that alone, at least for now.
However, it is also my belief that while human morality is in no sense absolute or absolutely binding upon us, it is the product of a long process of natural selection; that the human feelings of right and wrong, of moral obligation and duty, of fair dealing and proper behavior as a member of society, are the result of dearly bought, deeply tested, and carefully refined discoveries of our species over millions of years, and of our cultural forebears over the course of millennia. Our basic moral notions are thus grounded in and fitted to physical reality, in the same way that our sensations of vision and hearing are grounded in and fitted to physical reality. In this sense they are objective, and therefore authoritative. For these reasons I believe that traditional mores are not to be jettisoned lightly. Rather, it is prudent to conserve them as our default responses to changing situations. That is why I am a conservative.
Great! I hadn’t read this before writing my comments on the first two paragraphs.
But I also acknowledge that many people believe that an acceptance of Darwinism necessarily requires the leftist and nihilistic program that is often carried out in its name. And I acknowledge that this belief is not entirely without justification.
I further acknowledge that some of the anti-Darwinian beliefs have intellectual integrity. Since a theistic worldview has its own integrity, I cannot, in good conscience, regard it as false until such time as I have made a detailed study of the arguments.
Yes.
Therefore, as a conservative Darwinist, I stand wholeheartedly with any person fighting for the conservative goal of a properly ordered American society in which traditional ways and thought are paramount, and I will regard anti-Darwinian conservatives as my brothers-in-arms. I will not attack them or impugn their motives on account of their anti-Darwinism. I will, of course, consider myself free to disagree with them whenever I believe them to be in the wrong, but I will not regard their anti-Darwinism by itself as a reason to suspect their intelligence or integrity, as Darwinists generally do.
Yes.
Furthermore, I will understand that when conservatives assert that Darwinism leads to various social, intellectual, or moral ills, they do have an argument, and are not necessarily being bigots. I will therefore react to these assertions as one reacts to a brother with whom one disagrees, not as one reacts to an enemy.
Yes.
I also acknowledge that the majority of proper conservatives are anti-Darwinists, or at least non-Darwinists. This makes me a minority in the conservative camp, and, as a conservative, I acknowledge the right of majorities to demand respect for them and their ways.
I think it’s simply a matter of observation that most conservatives, including proper conservatives are anti-Darwinists or non-Darwinists. (With respect to racial differences in intelligence—and the actual existence of races—so is the Left!)
“Demanding respect” is always a loser, in any venue, as far as I’m concerned. (One of my lines for four-plus decades has been that those who demand the most respect seem to be those who deserve the least. I consider this another matter of observation, though I guess I don’t have any examples right now.) Instead, I would say that the majority is justified in responding angrily to disrespect on this score.
Finally, I will expect honorable anti-Darwinian conservatives to extend the same courtesies to me.
Yes, and I think this is sometimes a real issue.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 07, 2009 06:09 PM | Send
|