One of the things I'm getting a little tired of is seeing utilitarian arguments passed off as moral arguments. Not that I have any particular or inherent objection to a good utilitarian argument, mind you. It's just that usually, the people who make arguments based on moral absolutism are fond of condemning utilitarianism. Maybe they're just doing what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative," but the inconsistency still rattles me.
DOVER, Pa. - Outside the Dover fire hall last week, taking a break from a video lecture on "Why Evolution Is Stupid," Judy Grim blamed Darwin's theory for America's moral woes.
"If I'm taught there is a God I'm responsible to, I know I have to treat people right," said Grim, 63. "But if there's no creator to answer to, it changes your whole lifestyle. Then it's just survival of the fittest. That's where our society is headed. That's why we have so many of the problems we do."
Notice that unlike the typical argument that God exists, the above argument does not depend on the existence of God -- only the need for God as an authority figure. (If he didn't exist, we'd need to invent him because there must be order!) And this is based on, well, lifestyles.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think belief in God depends on more than whether lifestyles need authority. A good argument can be made that "people need authority" (and many have, with varying degrees of success -- particularly in the last century), but to posit that as a reason why Darwin should simply be declared wrong -- or should not be taught -- this not only substitutes a utilitarian argument against Darwin for a religious one, but it can even be seen as flying in the face of the ultimate moral argument -- whether or not something is true.
Furthermore, the idea that Darwin undercuts authority (and that is bad for lifestyles) could be made about countless things, just as it was once made about the notion that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. The challenge of religion ought to be how to encourage human spirituality and the belief in God notwithstanding man's continuing quest for knowledge.
Perhaps the idea of applying brakes on science or knowledge because they undermine authority or change lifestyles is too transparent, and thus is not palatable. But to substitute God for authority in such a grossly utilitarian manner is to torture spirituality and undermine the concept of human free will in a manner much more unpalatable (at least to my palate). If I thought God were simply an authority figure -- justified by the utilitarian principle that some ultimate authority is needed lest people misbehave -- I'd declare myself an atheist immediately on the basis of my moral principles, and I suspect a lot of people would. It's like subsituting a mindlessly circular "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" cop in the sky for spirituality. Many would consider it ugly, petty, and primitive, and far from persuasive.
But utilitarianism as moral absolutism is nothing new. I'm wondering whether Leon Kass and his progeny are doing something similar by spinning arguments against the social costs of life extension as moral principles based on natural law. (Justin has more.)
I know that there are people who, if faced with the choice between truth and God, will always go with God, but my tendency is to at least try go with truth, and hope that God will understand.
(That's probably why I'm plagued by doubts -- and why I seem to have been plagued with a lifetime of lifestyle issues....)
I suspect the real goal of some of these people is to eliminate doubt.
What an ugly world that would be.
UPDATE: I hope I am not out of line in quoting a minister on Sunday, but Donald Sensing's criticism of the confusion of faith with obedience resonated with me:
If we confuse Christian obedience with Christian faith, then we are liable to make a logical but erroneous connection: that the more obedient we are the more faith-filled we must be.
I also share his concerns about placing too high a value on people simply doing their duty. But (while it's off topic for this post) why does the phenomenon of people merely doing their jobs seem so extraordinary? Worse, if this is happening (if mediocrity has become excellence to be rewarded), then how are we to recognize excellence? By punishing it?
posted by Eric on 10.02.05 at 09:23 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2842
Comments
Darwin's theory of Evolution is explicitly atheistic. So support of his theory is support for atheism as well as support for Darwin's explanation of how the various forms of life arrived at their present state.
God being the source of everything that exists and all powerful is the supreme source of authority.
Therefore to deny God exists is to deny that the authority of God exists.
Given that it can be said that Darwin undercuts authority.
As to the question of the existence of God, there are several distinct classes of proof (e.g. cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral being the principle ones).
You can also look to the world around you and find evidence that there is a design to life. From that you can also conclude that there is a transcendent creator (i.e. God).
There are plenty of good books and web pages on these subjects. If you are interested I would be glad to point you to a few.
Charles M · October 2, 2005 11:09 AM
Nonsense; the theory of evolution doesn't mention God at all. It never makes any claim about God existing or not-existing. It is totally silent on that subject. You might argue that it is implicitly athiestic, but only in so far as any other theory like gravity or relativity does, in that they don't place God right at the centre of it. It is really just the insecure religious establishment that wants to pick fights with valid scientific theories because they perceive them as a threat.
Have to agree with Eric on going with truth and hoping God will understand. The whole creation/evolution/ID debate is angels on a pinhead discussion, more heat than light, with a lot of smoke and mirrors for good measure. Love your fellow creatures, try to love the creator, understand what I can and what I can't yet know, be willing to leave for future understanding.
Stewart · October 2, 2005 12:26 PM
Color me a bit cynical, but when I find the MSM covering the whole darwin/god/evolution/fundie debate they always seem to find the flat-earthers to quote.
Reminds me of the rare mea culpa the LA Times did years ago when they reviewed their "news" articles on the subject of abortion... they almost always quoted the more extremist "pro-lifers" and ignored those with reasonable arguments against NARAL/NOW approach to abortion.
Evolution and God are not contradictory.
As far as "God as authority" goes, I tend to find Dennis Prager's arguments based on the necessity for ethical monotheism very persuasive. Excerpt:
Another critical moral ramification of ethical monotheism is the sanctity of human life. Only if there is a God in whose image human beings are created is human life sacred. If human beings do not contain an element of the divine, they are merely intelligent animals.
For many years, I have been warning that a totally secular world view will erode the distinction between humans and animals. The popular contemporary expression "All life is sacred" is an example of what secularism leads to. It means that all life is equally sacred, that people and chickens are equally valuable. That is why the head of a leading animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has likened the barbecuing of six billion chickens a year to the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust; and that is how PETA could take out a full page ad in the Des Moines Register equating the slaughter of animals with the murder of people.
Such views don't so much enhance the value of animal life as they reduce the value of human life.
I have written several times about how American society has become much "coarser" with the promotion of substituting "morality" with "legality." If person A is acting obnoxiously toward person B in the workplace, Boss C won't discipline A without some specific policy or law on the books. Thus we pass more and more laws to deal with private behavior as morality, and the will to socially censure the immoral, loses ground.
Can secularists or atheists be MORAL people? OF COURSE. At the same time, though, they almost have to concede, on faith that human beings have inherent "rights" that cannot be usurped by other human beings - ie human beings are somehow "special" and "apart" from animals.
Excellent. I also agree with Charles M. above. This is where I diverge from Ayn Rand, or where her philosophy was incomplete.
"We must presuppose a Supreme Being, for all philosophy must necessarily begin with the primacy of consciousness over mere existence. Indeed, nothing can exist unless it is itself presupposed by a consciousness, by a higher consciousness, by the highest consciousness of all: God (the Holy Trinity) and the Most High Goddess (the Queen of Heaven."
-Origin, Meaning, and Destiny
I agree with holy Dawn that Nietzsche was too humble when he wrote:
"If there are Gods, how can I bear not to be a God? Therefore, there are no Gods!"
Wrong! He ought to have concluded instead:
"....Therefore, I must strive to be a God myself!"
I must strive to be holy. I know, I know, wicked Wanda.... They struggle within me....
I am of the opinion that you are dead on in your original thoughts on this. Judy Grim appears to be a fool. However, it does put an interesting slant on the discussion.
Yes, if there wasn't a God, we'd have to make one up.
Even some of the most devout acknowledge that what we practice in religion is man's interpretation of God's laws, and man is prone to error.
That said, it would be just as appropriate to argue that Darwin's original theories on the process of evolution didn't touch on the psychological aspects, only the physical. As we learn more and more about the role of heredity on aspects of behavior, we will learn more about evolution's impact on it.
Individuals who focus only on their own survival, ie, "the fittest" don't necessarily breed. If they do, their offspring may not survive. There must be a balance with the desire to be the fittest with helping the weak and vulnerable to survive as well. That brings us full circle to the role of religion and God in today's world: the socialization aspect of human beings. Without the belief in God it makes the requirement to love and protect others paramount, since God isn't there to do it for us.
The end result in the same: either a religious or non-religious foundation that we are responsible for helping our brother and caring for and protecting the weak.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Darwin's theory of Evolution is explicitly atheistic. So support of his theory is support for atheism as well as support for Darwin's explanation of how the various forms of life arrived at their present state.
God being the source of everything that exists and all powerful is the supreme source of authority.
Therefore to deny God exists is to deny that the authority of God exists.
Given that it can be said that Darwin undercuts authority.
As to the question of the existence of God, there are several distinct classes of proof (e.g. cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral being the principle ones).
You can also look to the world around you and find evidence that there is a design to life. From that you can also conclude that there is a transcendent creator (i.e. God).
There are plenty of good books and web pages on these subjects. If you are interested I would be glad to point you to a few.