The Morality Play: Act II
by MikeGeneIn his article on ID, Ker Than quotes Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who explains his interest in the debate:
It has huge consequences for society. It's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply the result of chance? If we are the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us.
Yet as we have seen, evolution itself is not the fulcrum. Neither is science. The fulcrum is the theological and philosophical inclinations a person brings to science and evolution. Yet why is it that evolution, and science, are constantly entangled in the debate about morality?
I would think the answer was obvious "“ very few people, on both sides of the aisle, make the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. In fact, it would seem many atheists would have a philosophical inclination to miss this distinction and thus appropriate science's stamp of approval.
So an atheist might be inclined to agree with Ker Than that "Darwin's theory of evolution tells us "¦..that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose." There will be no angry letters complaining that Than has confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. After all, not even Ken Miller will complain about this.
Thus, for many in the "reality-based" community, science is about "reality" and science tells us humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose. We can give lip service to distinctions between PN and MN as part of the political rhetoric used to fight the hordes of ID, but deep down, many in the "reality-based" community aren't willing to admit they are just another type of "faith-based" community.
It is this dynamic that sets up the reaction known as the ID Movement. If Science is the Judge of Reality, as many in the "reality-based" community say with their actions, then those in the "faith-based" community covet the prize. But why do they covet the prize? Because they see the "reality-based" community working hard to express a version of morality that supposedly flows from reality.
Consider atheist Barbara Forrest. As an educated person with a scholarly perspective of Reality, she would probably have no problem with Than's notion that "Darwin's theory of evolution tells us "¦..that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose." That's just how it is and science tells us so. On the contrary, she credits evolution with giving us the ability to live "meaningful lives." As she reports, with happy excitement, "It's evolution that gives us the advanced nervous system we have so that we can interact with our environments at a highly conscious level."
In other words, even though our lives have no inherent meaning or purpose, we have complex brain chemistry that allows us to pretend otherwise. The problem, though, is just how high must the "highly conscious level" be in order to have a meaningful life? Consider the human infant. It poses a serious problem for the "reality-based" community. If a baby interacts with the environment with a conscious level sufficient to earn the status of meaningful and valuable, this takes us into the realm of the animal rights extremist. If a baby does not interact with the environment with a conscious level sufficient to earn the status of meaningful and valuable, this takes us into the realm of the eugenicist.
The animal rights extremists and eugenicists are united by at least two themes: a) they both think evolution has something important to say about our morality, social behavior, and sense of purpose and b) they both nurse a hatred of humanity. And the perfect incarnation of this "reality-based" mindset is found in leading bioethicist, Peter Singer. Brian Carnell snags something from the Sydney Morning Herald that nicely illustrates the true nature of the dispute (also, be sure to read Carnell's whole posting):
Singer, an atheist, challenges the sanctity of life ethic, a religious hangover that, he argues, has collapsed because of the evolutionary understanding of human beings as animals, not as creatures made in the image of God, and because of medical technology that now forces daily choices about life and death.
He suggests a different ethic that recognises the quality of life as relevant, and includes the interests of non-human animals. His views are particularly threatening to many Americans.
A large part of the reaction is because of the prevalence of a strong religious belief, essentially of Christian fundamentalism, that pervades every aspect of American culture in a way that is alien to Australia.
You can read more about Singer here.
Or we might turn to Bill Hamilton, someone Richard Dawkins describes as the "most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin," having been "showered with medals and honours by the academies and learned societies of the world."
Consider this very interesting read:
All of this came to mind recently when reading about Bill Hamilton, the biologist whom Richard Dawkins once described as the closest one could come to meeting Darwin. Dawkins owed much of his book, The Selfish Gene, to Hamilton. His writing was according to Dawkins passionate, vivid and informed. After his death in March 2000 Dawkins declared, "He was kind, and humble, and gentle, and I loved him".
Yet for all Hamilton's brilliance there is a worrying and chilling aspect to his personality and work. He did not really like the human race. He once said that he had more sympathy for a lone fern than he did for a crying child. He argued that males were largely doomed to compete and that the purpose of sex was to clean out the gene pool by filtering out the useless and the weak. The low status male would be better off dead.
Everything in nature according to Hamilton could be explained as the outcome of competition between genes. He accepted the Gaia Hypothesis (earth as self-regulating goddess). He believed that Aids was caused by a human error "“ a polio vaccine manufactured with the kidneys of infected chimpanzees. A theory that has since been disproved. But most embarrassingly of all is his legacy in terms of the second volume of his autobiography. In this he argues for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia in order to save the world. He believed that modern medicine was doing harm by allowing the weak to survive and thus preserving their genes. His two concrete examples of these are caesarean sections and the glasses worn by John Maynard Smith! Spectacles were a symbol of decadence within the gene pool and as for caesarean sections "“ women should be allowed one and then only to save the mothers life "“ after that they should be paid not to have any more children. Hamilton's view of modern medicine was so eugenically based that he believed that the only acceptable forms of medicine were painkillers and surgery.
He declared that genocide was the result of overbreeding and that he grieves more for the death of one giant panda than he would for a "˜hundred unknown Chinese'. Whilst Dawkins and co might be prepared to write these views of as harmless eccentricities, Hamilton regarded them as proven scientific fact.
It is in his advocacy of euthanasia that Hamilton reaches a real low. Firstly he argued that the handicapped should be killed at birth. In arguing for what he termed "˜inclusive happiness' he stated "I have little doubt that if trying to survive on Robinson Crusoe's island with my wife I would indeed with my own hands kill a defective baby". Then he talks about his brother who died in infancy. Hamilton argues that this was a good thing. "Had Jimmy been born today I imagine he might have been saved by an intestinal re-section, but I know from my mother's attitude to all these matters that she would never have allowed it if she could have prevented it"¦Freya (his dog) deserves to be more loved and remembered than Jimmy to my mind, a statement I think my mother would have understood".
Although Dawkins argued that if Hamilton had been alive then his friends would have persuaded him to tone down some of the politics, one of the editors, Mark Ridley, felt he could not remove the offensive bits as "it would be like editing Moses." Dawkins himself has refused to review the book. Now what intrigues me here is how silent the media have been about this. Can you imagine what would happen if any churchman, never mind one of the leading figures, argued in such a way? "˜Christianity causes racism', "˜Churchman argues for killing the weak', would be the least of the headlines we would have to deal with. One also wonders why Dawkins has refused to review the book.
Since the blog is getting too long, I'll pick this up in the next entry.
