Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Tolstoy’s Last Letter

William Dembski
February 24, 2006
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:] Leo Tolstoy’s last completed letter, dictated from his sick-bed at the Astapovo train station on November 1, 1910 (six days before his death), and addressed to his son Seryozha and daughter Tanya, included a warning that Seryozha should not allow himself to be seduced by Darwinism. Here is the relevant passage:

“The views you have acquired about Darwinism, evolution and the struggle for existence won’t explain to you the meaning of your life and won’t give you guidance in your actions, and a life without an explanation of its meaning and importance, and without the unfailing guidance that stems from it is a pitiful existence.”

—Tolstoy’s Letters: Volume II, 1880-1910, selected, edited, and translated by
R.F. Christian. London: Athlone Press, 1978; No. 607, p. 717.

Comments
"The fundamental idea is that conscience is an adaptation like any other, giving its possessors an advantage in getting their genes into future generations." Since the conscience is said to be just an adaptation like any other, it is a trait that was naturally selected to carry survival benefits. Because of this, even the conscience is intended to be used mainly for one's survival. Nothing prevents us from using it to help other people, all I'm saying is that doing so would go against Darwinian logic. "That's right. The airplane counteracts the force of gravity, but the airplane's designers can continue to believe in gravitational theory with perfect consistency. In exactly the same way, a Darwinian can choose to commit suicide, use birth control, sacrifice her life for a total stranger, etc., and still believe in Darwinian theory with perfect consistency. Darwinian theory says that some individuals will successfully reproduce and that others will not. It does not oblige us to place ourselves in one group or the other. Darwinian theory, like other scientific theories, is *descriptive*, not *normative*." Of course it's possible for a Darwinist to go against his/her philosophy by doing something detrimental to their own being, but we're not arguing about what a Darwinist obviously can do, but what the philosophy suggests he/she does, which is, of course, survive. "If you've been reading my comments with any care at all, you'll know that I present that as an example of an absurdity. Christian doctrine obviously does not advocate sin. Yet the same logic you use to claim that Darwinian theory advocates cut-throat, self-centered behavior can be applied to Christianity, leading to the absurd conclusion that Christians are obligated to promote sin. Thus I conclude that your logic is flawed." Christian philosophy involves self-sacrifice and avoiding sinful behaviour. Darwinist philosophy involves ensuring one's survival. It's entirely possible for the follower of one to act like a follower of the other, but the point is the ideal Christian is self-sacrificing, and the ideal Darwinist is self-serving. We can honestly say that neither of those exist in great quantities. You literally re-invented Christian theology to say that it advocates sin. I don't need to re-invent Darwinism to say that it advocates survival of the fittest. "Christians acknowledge the widespread existence of sin. Yet they believe that they should not sin, and that they should help others to avoid sin. They fight sin, while acknowledging its continued widespread existence. There is no inconsistency. Recognizing the existence of sin does not obligate a Christian to promote it." I get your point, but my point is that ideally Christians should try to sin as little as possible. We all acknowledge survival of the fittest as a fact of life, but Darwinist philosophy places it above all things, even the conscience, the so-called internal moral compass, was a product of this. "Darwinians acknowledge the struggle for existence. They nevertheless continue to hold moral standards. Those moral standards sometimes cause them to do things that do not enhance their survival or increase the likelihood of getting their genes into future generations. Yet they acknowledge that natural selection continues to operate. There is no inconsistency. Recognizing natural selection does not obligate a Darwinian to promote her own survival or reproductive success." It's certain possible for a strict Darwinist to go against the philosophy and help other people to their own detriment, but we're not talking about what they can do, we're talking about what Darwinist philosophy says they should do. There's nothing in Darwinism that tells us to "love our neighbour", but everything in Darwinism tells us to survive. "All of the evidence is consistent with his genuine revulsion at the darker aspects of natural selection." This was his own moral objection to certain aspects of Darwinism. Most Darwinists take this route. Some don't, and those that don't aren't doing anything that contracts their philosophy. "If it was illogical for Darwin to abandon morality, why are you claiming that it is illogical for modern Darwinians to *maintain* morality?" As a person who believes that there is more to morality than as yet another evolutionary product, I don't find it illogical for any human to be moral. Darwinist philosophy says nothing about morality, however, and that leads to the ultimate question, "Who's to decide what's right or wrong?" "Darwinian theory says nothing about what *should* take precedence, or who is *meant* to live. Those are normative statements which are outside the scope of a descriptive theory." The scientific theory states that certain traits will cause some organisms to survive and some to die off. It's a pretty obvious statement when you look at real life, and it's true today, evident through competition in the human world. However a theory with such grand claims naturally carries philosophical implications. Leo Tolstoy was talking about those implications in his letter. He was rightfully concerned that Darwinism carried a philosophy that is inseparable from the scientific theory, and that philosophy has profound implications on how we live our lives. Darwinism provides no moral guidance, and says that we are here because we were lucky accidents, beings little different from animals, with no purpose in mind when we were created.jasonng
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Note: In the comment above, the paragraph that begins "The Party seeks..." is the start of my second reply. (It's not a quote from valerie.) ;-)j
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
valerie: "keep in mind that the evolutionary origin of our moral sense doesn't prove that good and evil are illusory, any more than the evolutionary origin of our reasoning ability proves that truth and falsehood are illusory" We're not talking about "an evolutionary origin" (which allows of teleology). We're talking specifically about a Darwinian (materialist) evolutionary origin, in which our moral sense came about by blind/purposeless/dumb forces acting on inert matter. If that were possible, then good and evil, as well as truth and falsity, would, indeed, be illusory: It's all just atoms bouncing around. me: "How does one decide what ought to be?" valerie: "We search our consciences, we think about it, and we listen to what others have to say about it. We reach conclusions that may differ from the sincerely held conclusions of others." ... "I can think of plenty of reasons to continue [contributing to the well being of others], none of which depend on the existence of an absolute moral standard: 1. We care about the well-being of others, and are genuinely happier when we help them. 2. Society functions better when we are willing to help others. 3. By helping others, we gain not only the satisfaction of doing so, we also earn their gratitude and affection. This may rebound to our benefit when we are in need of help. 4. Family and work life become more pleasant and less stressful when we are willing to help others." "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives... Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy -- everything... There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." Why is this not what ought to be? Why is this evil? (The Devil's advocate would ask.) [It's never too late for it to be (Orwell's) 1984.]j
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Moderators, could you check to see if my latest reply to jasonng got caught by the spam filter? Thanks, Valerie "...that the “oughtness” of the moral ought is as such a pure convention. But do we really want to go that route?" Whether we want to "go that route" is independent of whether morality is a pure convention. Interestingly, Irving Kristol (at least at one point in his life) seemed to believe that religion was bogus, but that we should keep it around to pacify the masses and maintain social order. He felt that only the intellectual elites were equipped to grapple with a nonreligious worldview. "Do we really want to say that the claim that we ought not to torture small animals or mutilate prisoners is simply the product of convention?" You seem to be using the word "convention" to mean a purely arbitrary set of morals. But our morals cannot be consciously revised at will. They are not purely arbitrary. They are constrained by our evolutionary past and our need to coexist within human society. This is why moral conventions have so much in common the world over. Note that asserting the existence of an absolute standard does not solve the problem of moral conflict. The Pakistani men who kill their sisters in defense of the family's "honor" believe they are acting in accordance with an absolute moral standard. So do the Christians who condemn these honor killings. “Ought” does not mean: “proven by natural selection to be effective in promoting survival.” I agree. We should not model our morality on the operation of natural selection. Nevertheless, natural selection happens to be largely responsible for creating our moral sense. "If the latter, then I think we're in big trouble, in the sense that we have no rational argument against disregarding prohibitions against horrendous acts (=torture, rape, genocide, etc.) if circumstances seem to require it." Not to worry. Disbelievers in an absolute moral standard have shown themselves to possess a morality which is quite in line with that of modern society, particularly in regard to things like torture (with the exception of the Bush administration), rape, and genocide. And there is no rational argument against those things even if there *is* an absolute moral standard. What about the mere existence of an absolute standard compels us to honor it? Morality and values have always ultimately boiled down to choice and personal conviction. Regards, Valerievalerie
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Hi Valerie. I am not at all surprised that a computer can beat a human at chess. The human brain, and the intellect which is its by-product, are quite computer-like in many way. The choices involved in successfully winning a chess match are strictly material and explicable in terms of rules, odds, etc. They do not in any way demand understandings which derive from the "higher octave" of human value which I ascribe to the soul or spirit, such as beauty, truth, compassion, prayer, etc. to backtrack: I agree with your analysis of language in the sense that higher, more abstract words are built on bodily or spatial concepts. To me this seems quite organic and natural, and in no way shows that these abstractions derive from lower sources. I would describe my beliefs as a bit gnostic "as above, so below" :the higher gives birth to the lower, which reflects it. If the body has an eye which allows it to bring in sensory information, so the soul must have an eye of its own substance and function which allows it to have "insight" or the sight of the inner man. when I said that you are worshipping your god, I meant it figuratively! I was trying to liken worship to the giving of homage to that which we believe has greatest value. I guess in a sense this is what I believe worship should consist of: the conscious allegiance to the highest thing. For a materialist, perhaps that highest thing is matter and its alleged by-products. Thus the term worship. with regard to the question of the desire to live beyond matter, or life after life, nothing more can really be said. I know I am never going to convince a committed materialist of this. I know from personal experience that I have experienced many instances of precognitive awareness, etc. which seem to point to the existence of some part of me which can know independent of the physical senses. I suppose you would assume I am lying about these events, but i can only respond that I am not and leave it at that. THanks again, Tinatinabrewer
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
jasonng wrote: "The trouble is how does the Darwinist explain how [conscience] came into being? We might never know, rendering the Darwinian theory useless in this respect." For excellent explanations of how Darwinian theory applies to the origin of conscience, cooperation, and virtue, see Robert Wright's "Nonzero" and "The Moral Animal", Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", and Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue". The fundamental idea is that conscience is an adaptation like any other, giving its possessors an advantage in getting their genes into future generations. "The manufacturing of airplanes is done under the assumption that gravity will keep the airplane from floating away into space. Thus the building of an airplane would not violate one's belief in that theory." That's right. The airplane counteracts the force of gravity, but the airplane's designers can continue to believe in gravitational theory with perfect consistency. In exactly the same way, a Darwinian can choose to commit suicide, use birth control, sacrifice her life for a total stranger, etc., and still believe in Darwinian theory with perfect consistency. Darwinian theory says that some individuals will successfully reproduce and that others will not. It does not oblige us to place ourselves in one group or the other. Darwinian theory, like other scientific theories, is *descriptive*, not *normative*. "Your theology is highly mistaken if you think that the existance of sin obliges Christians to purposely sin." If you've been reading my comments with any care at all, you'll know that I present that as an example of an absurdity. Christian doctrine obviously does not advocate sin. Yet the same logic you use to claim that Darwinian theory advocates cut-throat, self-centered behavior can be applied to Christianity, leading to the absurd conclusion that Christians are obligated to promote sin. Thus I conclude that your logic is flawed. Christians acknowledge the widespread existence of sin. Yet they believe that they should not sin, and that they should help others to avoid sin. They fight sin, while acknowledging its continued widespread existence. There is no inconsistency. Recognizing the existence of sin does not obligate a Christian to promote it. Darwinians acknowledge the struggle for existence. They nevertheless continue to hold moral standards. Those moral standards sometimes cause them to do things that do not enhance their survival or increase the likelihood of getting their genes into future generations. Yet they acknowledge that natural selection continues to operate. There is no inconsistency. Recognizing natural selection does not obligate a Darwinian to promote her own survival or reproductive success. "Well for one thing since you obtained access to that letter, it seems it wasn't very private after all." The letter wasn't published until five years after Darwin's death. Don't you think Darwin would have managed to get the word out sooner if that was his purpose? Here is Darwin writing to Asa Gray: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars." All of the evidence is consistent with his genuine revulsion at the darker aspects of natural selection. "Even though he may have left his belief later on, it would be illogical for him to throw away that concept of morality." If it was illogical for Darwin to abandon morality, why are you claiming that it is illogical for modern Darwinians to *maintain* morality? "Darwinism stresses that the struggle for survival should take precedence over all else, because in the natural world, the strong are meant to live." Darwinian theory says nothing about what *should* take precedence, or who is *meant* to live. Those are normative statements which are outside the scope of a descriptive theory.valerie
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
tinabrewer asks: "are you committed to these [materialist] views even though you consider them to be unpalatable? Or do they fulfill what for you is the best possible world?" Hi Tina, I would say neither. Our world is certainly not the best possible world, and it could definitely be improved, but I don't find it unpalatable. "In short, everything, both physical and mental, points to an intuitive awareness of the significance of the archetype “from above” of ” from below”." George Lakoff writes convincingly of the "embodied mind", his concept that the more abstract functions of the human mind are built on lower-level sensorimotor and emotional functions. He shows that the evidence of this is fossilized in our language: we "under stand" certain things; others go "over our heads", or "beyond us". To "comprehend" means literally to "grasp completely". When we understand something we say "I see". Once you start noticing these, you'll see that they are quite pervasive. Even when the words themselves seem to be abstract, you'll see by examining the etymology that they are founded on bodily or spatial metaphors. When we say that something is a bottom-up explanation, we simply mean that the higher levels of the explanation rest on the lower levels, just as a building does. I'm afraid I don't read anything more into it than that. "...the bottom-up explanations of everything fly completely in the face of the simple intuitive experiences of most people with regard to higher values." That's true, but intuition on its own has a pretty poor track record for revealing truth. The genius of science is that it harnesses the power of intuition without getting carried away by it. "...you wrote that you find the brute forces of matter far from brute, and you think the problem is more that we have given material forces far too LITTLE credit...You are just worshipping your god." I don't *worship* matter, by any means. But the common intuition that simple, "mindless" matter cannot generate nuanced behavior when combined in complex ways is false. If we didn't already know it was true, we'd find it hard to believe that a computer can beat a grandmaster at chess. After all, a computer is essentially just a complicated interconnection of mindless transistors. "The problem is, that your god cannot produce that which the inner life of the human yearns for more stridently than anything, and that is the continuation of consciousness beyond the bounds of matter." Again, truth is not obliged to conform to our desires. "From humanity's earliest time, we are the only species which, as a part of our basic functioning, have held beliefs about life beyond life. The Darwinian just-so narrative about religion arising out of a fearful need to explain the unexplained falls apart when we see how little the need for such explanations exists even in highly intelligent near-relative primates." Our understanding of religion's evolutionary underpinnings is still in its infancy, because religion has been a taboo subject for so long. Daniel Dennett's new book is aimed largely at "breaking the ice" and encouraging scientists to turn their focus to religion. Dennett raises the question of whether religion can exist apart from language. If not, then its absence among intelligent primates makes sense.valerie
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Dear Valerie, Here's another way of putting it. "Ought" does not mean: "proven by natural selection to be effective in promoting survival." Note: I'm talking about the quality of "oughtness" as such. As Kant noted, given the modern scientific understanding of nature, you can't get an "ought" out of the physical "is." Thus, there are basically two alternatives: "oughtness" is based on something other than nature as modern science---here Darwinistic biology---understands it . . . or "oughtness" is a conventional fiction. If the latter, then I think we're in big trouble, in the sense that we have no rational argument against disregarding prohibitions against horrendous acts (=torture, rape, genocide, etc.) if circumstances seem to require it. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Dear Valerie, I can say something about the is-ought issue later. For the time being, I want us to be on the same page about the issue of Darwinism and ethics. My point, to repeat, is that natural selection can, at most, "prescribe" rules for survival (of whatever the relevant units of selection are), but it can't explain the oughtness of ethical oughts, it can't explain why I shouldn't rape children. Note, I'm not arguing against natural explanation; just against Darwinist accounts of ethics. It seems to me that, if Darwinist accounts of ethics aren't tenable, and no other candidates appear, then we ARE left with the idea, not only that I have to decide whether to act ethically, but that I have to decide, that is, create or make up, what acting ethically means---that the "oughtness" of the moral ought is as such a pure convention. But do we really want to go that route? Do we really want to say that the claim that we ought not to torture small animals or mutilate prisoners is simply the product of convention? Cordially, Adrianadrian walker
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
Karen: "The struggle for existence is a fact of life, not the basis of my worldview. It doesn't compel me to embrace eugenics and genocide. What it does mean is that I buy heartworm, flea, and tick preventives for my dogs, and organic pest control stuff for my garden. That's it, believe me. Do you have a better suggestion?" We're not debating the existance of survival of the fittest. What is of concern is the Darwinist philosophy, which states that even morality developed from evolutionary processes, processes that are inherently self-serving. Who are we to say what's right and what's wrong? If someone steals something so they can survive (causing the other's death), who's to say, under Darwinism, that it was the wrong thing to do? He/she was simply ensuring survival. "And was Darwin a Darwinist? He was never completely atheistic; rather, it seems that he ended up as an agnostic after struggling a long time with the question of faith. So was he a monster, devoid of morals and ethics? He seems to have been a decent person, a loving father and a faithful husband. The tragic death of his beloved young daughter had a big part in his loss of faith. Furthermore, he was vehemently abolitionist, at a time when many Christians defended slavery based on their Biblical worldview." He was a racist nonetheless, and his theory gives justification for that, should he need it. Christianity stresses very strongly that all humans are created equal in that we're all flawed. Darwinism stresses that the struggle for survival should take precedence over all else, because in the natural world, the strong are meant to live. Comparing moral Darwinists to immoral Christians does nothing to reconcile the glaring differences between the two philosophies.jasonng
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Scott wrote: "It is thoroughly unwarranted to assume that liberty amongst believers on issues of conscience somehow invalidates the notion of an absolute standard." I didn't say that it did. I'm pointing out that sincere Christians don't have access to an absolute, objective standard of morality, whether it exists or not. If they did, there would be no disputes over morality among them. They are in the same boat as the rest of us, trying to figure out their morality as they go. "In principle, there is NO REASON to continue contributing to the well being of others, even if we choose to continue to..." I can think of plenty of reasons to continue, none of which depend on the existence of an absolute moral standard: 1. We care about the well-being of others, and are genuinely happier when we help them. 2. Society functions better when we are willing to help others. 3. By helping others, we gain not only the satisfaction of doing so, we also earn their gratitude and affection. This may redound to our benefit when we are in need of help. 4. Family and work life become more pleasant and less stressful when we are willing to help others. etc. I enjoy the poetry of Billy Collins. Do I need the justification of some external, absolute aesthetic standard to continue doing so? "...it would seem to require tremendous faith to believe that DaVinci's works were designed, but that DaVinci himself was ultimately the product of chance and material processes. Balderdash I say." All you are saying is that you personally find it difficult to accept, and that therefore those of us who do accept it must be doing so on faith. That's not the case. "How is this an even remotely valid comparison? The theological doctrine of the internal spiritual condition of humans to… forgive me if I don't follow the logic in your assertion here." See my forthcoming response to jasonng.valerie
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
"And one of the best survival traits in humans is the conscience. The conscience is crucial in allowing us to live harmoniously in societies, and humans have survived better in societies than on their own since time immemorial." It seems the conscience was developed with a purpose in mind. The trouble is how does the Darwinist explain how it came into being? We might never know, rendering the Darwinian theory useless in this respect. "Which of us is being absurd? Look at my absurd “gravitationist” example. How is it logically any different from your claims about Darwinism?" The manufacturing of airplanes is done under the assumption that gravity will keep the airplane from floating away into space. Thus the building of an airplane would not violate one's belief in that theory. "If the widespread existence of sin does not require a Christian to promote sin, why does the widespread existence of evolutionary struggle require a “Darwinist” to promote evolutionary struggle. If “is” does not imply “ought” in the former case, why should it in the latter?" The existance of sin obliges Christians to go against sin. Darwinist philosophy obliges humans to seek survival benefits above all else. Your theology is highly mistaken if you think that the existance of sin obliges Christians to purposely sin. Talk to any churchgoing five-year old. "The “devil's chaplain” quote is from a private letter to Hooker and has nothing to do with “toning down” the message for a wider audience." Well for one thing since you obtained access to that letter, it seems it wasn't very private after all. Secondly, Darwin was a strong Christian for much of his life and thus had the idea of morality imbedded in him. Even though he may have left his belief later on, it would be illogical for him to throw away that concept of morality. However these days you've got a lot of followers of moral relativism, people just going "who's to say what's right or wrong?", and I believe that is partially due to a Darwinist mindset that morality was in fact just another accidental evolutionary product. This places the ultimate Darwinian goal of survival above that of morality. Of course I realize that it's hard to find a Darwinist that will readily admit that, since most people obviously belief in some degree of morality over survival at all costs. But is this belief consistent with Darwinian philosophy? That's the real question.jasonng
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
A couple of responses to valerie: you wrote that truth is not required to be palatable to humans. I couldn't agree more. I would add a couple of thoughts on this, though. There must be something in you which makes the desire for truth and palatability go very much hand in hand, since you seem utterly committed to materialism. are you committed to these views even though you consider them to be unpalatable? Or do they fulfill what for you is the best possible world? The existentialists of the nineteenth and early twentieth century recognized the gross unpalatability of materialism, because the bottom-up explanations of everything fly completely in the face of the simple intuitive experiences of most people with regard to higher values. Most people percieve (in your view they adhere to a delusion) that higher values like love, compassion, beauty, artistry, etc. derive from a higher source. Everything speaks to this intuition. When someone is happy and exhalted, their gait tends to be freer, they are more upright, they tilt their head UPward. When someone is depressed, they are physically drawn down, their head sinks, they look DOWNward. In short, everything, both physical and mental, points to an intuitive awareness of the significance of the archetype "from above" of " from below". Incidentally, this does not denigrate matter. It is only the adherence to matter and its constraints and perogatives which disorders the system. It is like if a plant, instead of growing upward toward the light of the sun, were to focus the energy of its growth and development solely in its roots in the lightless soil. Eventually, the plant could not flower any longer. also, you wrote that you find the brute forces of matter far from brute, and you think the problem is more that we have given material forces far too LITTLE credit. This is an interesting observation. It feels like a philosophical inversion which moves nothing forward, though. PEople give praise to that which they feel to be responsible for somehting. If God is responsible for life, then praise be to God. If matter is responsible for life, the praise be to matter. You are just worshipping your god. The problem is, that your god cannot produce that which the inner life of the human yearns for more stridently than anything, and that is the continuation of consciousness beyond the bounds of matter. From humanity's earliest time, we are the only species which, as a part of our basic functioning, have held beliefs about life beyond life. The Darwinian just-so narrative about religion arising out of a fearful need to explain the unexplained falls apart when we see how little the need for such explanations exists even in highly intelligent near-relative primates. The chimp, 95% similar genetically, with complex social system, tool use, etc. does not worship, does not create art. In short, its entire being is fulfilled WITHIN the bounds of matter. The human instinctively steps beyond these bounds. This leap of consciousness does not convincingly arise from a bigger brain. third, you wrote that if it were true that extreme materialists really suffered from weakened psyches, then Darwinists would be notably less moral than other members of the population. Note that I said that "the extreme proponents of the most rigid materialism" would suffer from this weakening of their spiritual perceptive capacity. In my view, such materialism is IN NO WAY limited to scientism. I am convinced that a huge number of so-called religious people are really the most staunch materialists. They can hardly envision a thing unless it conforms to a concrete event or structure, or a page in a book. Anything lying outside of the narrow bounds of their particular dogma is rejected without consideration or objectivity. They fail to percieve the magnitude of the spiritual principles of their respective religions, narrowing these sayings into dogmatism and even violence in order to satisfy their inner need to feel superior to others. The list goes on. Such people equally fail to exercise their spiritual legs, and are as cut off as any scientism advocate, from the streams of light and truth which flow from above! Karen's post about the good Samaritan is so illustrative of this. Christ, who is supposed to be the model for christians, unhesitatingly called the Samaritan superior morally, in spite of his belonging to the 'wrong' religion, because Christ was not concerned with creeds, but with truth and compassion. But today, many a so-called Christian unhesitatingly and quite enthusiastically condems the majority of their fellow men, no matter how good and compassionate, to eternal hellfire, because they belong to the wrong religion...tinabrewer
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Karen, this is an if... then... statement, so happens that I don't believe it at all. Valerie, as Scott said, you miss the point. This isn't just my morality, this is a fundamental Christian doctrine and integral to this is the second greatest comandment "to love your neighbor as yourself". This gives me a solid moral framework that is external to myself. And it isn't about following some ethical prescription, it's about becoming something different than what I find myself to be - selfish and depraved.jacktone
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
"Sorry, but if Darwin's narrative is true, then I simply can't bring myself to really care about anything." ______________________________________________________________________________ That's not an impressive ethical system. Perhaps you don't really mean that. Do you stop at stop signs ONLY because a policeman might be watching? Or do you understand that good laws protect the lives of all humans, and should be obeyed primarily for that reason? And what do you make of the parable of the Good Samaritan? Samaritans were not Jewish-- they were hated religious outsiders, and their compromised religion was considered impure. And yet, the Samaritan felt compassion on the suffering victim of the bandits. It was on the basis of the Samaritan's act of compassion that Jesus made him the hero of the story.Karen
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
I don't want to de-rail this discussion and I certainly don't want to delve into theology too much, but in direct response to Karen's post... as a Christian, I would have to assume that you understand the Biblical doctrine of the "Fall" which does an excellent job of explaining a world which groans for it's redemption - this is where nasty lil critters like Ticks, come into play. Some other food for thought - if a Christian is only a Christian because of faith in the ransom sacrifice of Christ, a direct propitiation for Adam's disobedience (hence Christ being called "the last Adam"), then how is the saving sacrifice of Christ of any value whatsoever if the account of Adam's fall is a myth? That's all I'll say on this topic.Scott
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Responding to my comment that the struggle for existence is a fact of life, Jasong replied, "Yes, but having that as the basis of one's worldview (inevitable given a strong belief in Darwinism) causes selfishness at the very least and horrible things like eugenics and genocide at the very worst. Darwinism morally justifies those who desire such a worldview and in fact encourages them to look out for themselves in a battle for survival." The struggle for existence is a fact of life, not the basis of my worldview. It doesn't compel me to embrace eugenics and genocide. What it does mean is that I buy heartworm, flea, and tick preventives for my dogs, and organic pest control stuff for my garden. That's it, believe me. Do you have a better suggestion? I don't know how ID theorists see ticks-- perhaps they see evidence of multiple designers in competition. I really don't know. I do know that ticks are nasty-- they suck your blood and spread disease. I'm a Christian, but I know that religious beliefs with a plan and purpose in life do not guarantee that people will make the right choices. The followers of Osama bin Laden are religiously motivated to murder, maim, burn and poison every man, woman and child in America. All in the name of God. And was Darwin a Darwinist? He was never completely atheistic; rather, it seems that he ended up as an agnostic after struggling a long time with the question of faith. So was he a monster, devoid of morals and ethics? He seems to have been a decent person, a loving father and a faithful husband. The tragic death of his beloved young daughter had a big part in his loss of faith. Furthermore, he was vehemently abolitionist, at a time when many Christians defended slavery based on their Biblical worldview. Just something to think about.Karen
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
valerie wrote: "See my reply to j above. And keep in mind that the evolutionary origin of our moral sense doesn't prove that good and evil are illusory, any more than the evolutionary origin of our reasoning ability proves that truth and falsehood are illusory." -- You presuppose that a non-cognizant, blind, naturalistic mechanism produced a species of cognizant reasoning beings with all of our longings and propositions, and our apparent wiring to seek out the meaning of our existance, without the input of an intelligence. You have far greater faith than I, valerie. But I understand how this just-so story is the only option for Darwinists. valerie wrote: "Not true. Honest, sincere Christians disagree among themselves on matters of morality. If they had access to an “absolute objective standard”, these disputes would vanish." -- This would be a straw man. It is thoroughly unwarranted to assume that liberty amongst believers on issues of conscience somehow invalidates the notion of an absolute standard. And the fact remains that under a Darwinian belief-system, there is nothing to suggest that morality is actual and not just an illusion projected by our [material-produced] consciences to keep us from destroying one another. valerie wrote: "Wow, jacktone, I hope that's not true. If it is, then your morality is really only about pleasing an outside authority, and not about contributing to the well-being of others. Many people believe that their morality is utterly dependent on their religion. I like to ask them, “Suppose you came across incontrovertible proof that your God doesn't exist and that your holy book(s) are a sham. Would you really start killing, stealing, and abusing the elderly? Would you stop treating your spouse and children with respect and affection?”" -- You miss the point. In principle, there is NO REASON to continue contributing to the well being of others, even if we choose to continue to. Again, the "oughtness" which was mentioned earlier. And in principle, there should be no accountability for whatever actions and behavior I choose. valerie wrote: "My first response is that truth isn't required to be palatable to humans. Part of being a mature human is in coming to grips with the aspects of reality that don't conform to your fondest wishes. Beyond that, I don't find Darwinian theory to be a “ghastly reduction.” On the contrary, I think it shows us that we've been underestimating the power of “brute matter” all along. Matter has the potential to produce the human mind with all of its best creations: music, science, civilization, morality. The error is not in “reducing” mind to “brute matter”, but rather in labeling as “brute matter” something which is capable of producing these exalted phenomena, along with the rest of the Universe's wonders." -- Complete faith based assumption. I suppose it comes down to a definition of "matter". Regardless, it would seem to require tremendous faith to believe that DaVinci's works were designed, but that DaVinci himself was ultimately the product of chance and material processes. Balderdash I say. valerie wrote: "Actually, natural selection does not “care” about the survival of species. It cares about the propagation of genes, and of the survival of individuals as vehicles for those genes to get into the next generation. That aside, there's no reason that you *have* to worry about the survival of the species, or of yourself, or of your genes. You can choose to commit suicide, for example, or to use birth control and thereby have no children. What natural selection “wants” is not binding on you, which is the point I'm trying to make to jasonng." -- Yes, that's how the narrative goes. And I continue to be amazed at the level of credit and responsibility given to a nebulous unthinking mechanism which thus far has barely been able to demonstrate trivial adaptive physiological change within an existing species. Faith again. Sooo much the "selfish gene" theory fails to account for in human behavior, but that would be a discussion in itself. valerie wrote: "And one of the best survival traits in humans is the conscience. The conscience is crucial in allowing us to live harmoniously in societies, and humans have survived better in societies than on their own since time immemorial." -- And again, the Darwinist would have us believe that this mindless mechanism is responsible [sans intelligent input]for the bevy of complex emotional substance that makes us us and allows us to have these debates about our purpose and meaning. This notion of the mind, the unique self being the result of unguided material processes is a fallacious bottom-up approach that I'm amazed people buy into. It truly smacks of desperation. valerie wrote: "If the widespread existence of sin does not require a Christian to promote sin, why does the widespread existence of evolutionary struggle require a “Darwinist” to promote evolutionary struggle. If “is” does not imply “ought” in the former case, why should it in the latter?" -- How is this an even remotely valid comparison? The theological doctrine of the internal spiritual condition of humans to... forgive me if I don't follow the logic in your assertion here.Scott
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
What on earth are y'all talking about? What does the theory of evolution by natural selection have to do with morality? I mean there must be a grand total of 2 people on this planet who derive their moral philosophies from evolution. Jasonng said: "Yes, but having that as the basis of one's worldview (inevitable given a strong belief in Darwinism) causes selfishness at the very least and horrible things like eugenics and genocide at the very worst." Ah yes, you got me. I confess. I accept Darwin's theory of evolution and I am also a closet genocidal maniac.George
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
"The main problem I see with such accounts is that they don't really explain the “OUGHTNESS” of the moral “ought.” For example, if someone says, “the oughtness of morally good actions is natural selection's way of telling us what we need to do to survive as a species,” I would reply: “even supposing that that is true, why should I worry about the survival of the human species?”" Actually, natural selection does not "care" about the survival of species. It cares about the propagation of genes, and of the survival of individuals as vehicles for those genes to get into the next generation. That aside, there's no reason that you *have* to worry about the survival of the species, or of yourself, or of your genes. You can choose to commit suicide, for example, or to use birth control and thereby have no children. What natural selection "wants" is not binding on you, which is the point I'm trying to make to jasonng. "In other words: where does an impersonal, amoral natural process get the authority to oblige me to do anything? The most such a process can do is dictate what we need to do as a matter of fact if we are going to survive. But it doesn't have the wherewithal to transform that “what you need to do” into a “what you ought to do.”" True. And as I said above, I believe that the impersonal, amoral natural process does not have "authority" and cannot oblige you to do anything. Our moral decisions are just that -- decisions. Even an absolute moral code cannot "oblige" you to follow it. You must choose to do so. "...I have really problems with the claim that you can't get an ought from an is..." Could you explain why? jasonng wrote: "Where does this conscience fit into the grand scheme of things? Darwinism is based on random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it's about getting the best survival traits and making sure you survive, even if that means getting rid of others that would hinder your survival." And one of the best survival traits in humans is the conscience. The conscience is crucial in allowing us to live harmoniously in societies, and humans have survived better in societies than on their own since time immemorial. "Do you realize how absurd you're sounding? Christianity recognizes the existance of sin and Christians are obliged to turn AWAY from sinful behaviour. Darwinist philosophy has no concept of right or wrong, and in fact obliges anyone who believes in it to fight for one's survival at essentially any cost." Which of us is being absurd? Look at my absurd "gravitationist" example. How is it logically any different from your claims about Darwinism? If the widespread existence of sin does not require a Christian to promote sin, why does the widespread existence of evolutionary struggle require a "Darwinist" to promote evolutionary struggle. If "is" does not imply "ought" in the former case, why should it in the latter? "Darwin realized that no one would actually thought about it would accept the implications of true Darwinist philosophy. He certainly didn't want to accept it either, but he honestly thought it was true at the time. So, naturally he had to tone it down a little for it to gain wide acceptance." The "devil's chaplain" quote is from a private letter to Hooker and has nothing to do with "toning down" the message for a wider audience.valerie
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
Scott wrote: "Yes, but valerie how does the Darwinian establish what is “good” or “evil”? Are these not illusory? There is no standard to measure them against under this world view." See my reply to j above. And keep in mind that the evolutionary origin of our moral sense doesn't prove that good and evil are illusory, any more than the evolutionary origin of our reasoning ability proves that truth and falsehood are illusory. "The Christian has an absolute objective standard to juxtapose such notions." Not true. Honest, sincere Christians disagree among themselves on matters of morality. If they had access to an "absolute objective standard", these disputes would vanish. jacktone wrote: "Sorry, but if Darwin's narrative is true, then I simply can't bring myself to really care about anything. As discussed in another recent thread, why be good? ...Personally, I find within myself the inclination to sink to unfathomable depths of depravity, which is what I need to be saved from. I have nothing in and of myself to be proud of or to cling to, I need to be changed into something else altogether." Wow, jacktone, I hope that's not true. If it is, then your morality is really only about pleasing an outside authority, and not about contributing to the well-being of others. Many people believe that their morality is utterly dependent on their religion. I like to ask them, "Suppose you came across incontrovertible proof that your God doesn't exist and that your holy book(s) are a sham. Would you really start killing, stealing, and abusing the elderly? Would you stop treating your spouse and children with respect and affection?" tinabrewer wrote: "The Shaw quote is beautiful. It is a perfect encapsulation of the rebellion of the human spirit against the brute determinism which is so inseparable from the materialism of Darwinism." Shaw considers natural selection "a ghastly reduction of beauty and intelligence, of strength and purpose, of honor and aspiration, to such casually picturesque changes as an avalanche may make in a mountain landscape..." My first response is that truth isn't required to be palatable to humans. Part of being a mature human is in coming to grips with the aspects of reality that don't conform to your fondest wishes. Beyond that, I don't find Darwinian theory to be a "ghastly reduction." On the contrary, I think it shows us that we've been underestimating the power of "brute matter" all along. Matter has the potential to produce the human mind with all of its best creations: music, science, civilization, morality. The error is not in "reducing" mind to "brute matter", but rather in labeling as "brute matter" something which is capable of producing these exalted phenomena, along with the rest of the Universe's wonders. "The materialist may deny they have this internal substance [the soul], but if they have it, they have it,whether they recognize it or not. So, if that is the case, then of course they will be able to form moral opinions and feel the inhibitions which accompany this higher inner essense...someone who categorically denies the existence of something in themselves for a long time in their spiritual history, will eventually cause that function to weaken to the point where it is no longer able to exert its proper energy. Today I think the extreme proponents of the most rigid materialism are such people." If this were true, materialists would be noticeably immoral relative to the larger population. I see no evidence for this. "If such individuals are staunchly moral, as Richard Dawkins for example, claims to be, it is because they have so completely given themselves over to the belief in the brutal determinism of forces beyond their control that it terrifies them to imagine the implications of their own deeply held philosophy." I can assure you that materialism need not be a terrifying belief. But even if it were, why would that terror lead to moral behavior?valerie
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
j asks: "How does one decide what ought to be?" Note that the answer is the same whether or not you believe in an objective external morality: We search our consciences, we think about it, and we listen to what others have to say about it. We reach conclusions that may differ from the sincerely held conclusions of others. taciturnus asks: "Just wondering… is the following an absolute statement that should be greeted with suspicion: 'What *is* bears no necessary relation to what *ought to be*.'" I assume this is a reference to the discussion of absolutism on the other thread. If so, I would say no, there is no reason to regard my statement with suspicion. After all, I'm willing to entertain your arguments for why 'what is' and 'what ought to be' are necessarily related. "Also, might what *is* bear a relation to what *ought to be* that is not necessary but nonetheless real?" Sure. In a world where what *is* accorded perfectly with our moral sense of what *ought to be*, the two would share the relation of identity. It would not be a necessary relation, because a moral defect introduced into such a world needn't affect our standards of morality.valerie
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT

Scientific theories such as evolutionary theory have nothing to do with morality. Morality is a social contract between people, something people agree on, partly for selfish reasons: I won't do to you what I don't want you to do to me. That's exactly what the bible is too: a collection of moralistic stories that a certain group of powerful people agreed upon a long time ago. The idea that only religious people can be moral is simply false. Animals other than humans have morals too. Frans de Waal, a famous primate researcher, makes a good scientific case for this.

Raevmo
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
"And by his or her own conscience." Where does this conscience fit into the grand scheme of things? Darwinism is based on random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it's about getting the best survival traits and making sure you survive, even if that means getting rid of others that would hinder your survival. "My point was to show you that the same logic you applied to Darwinians would, if applied to Christians, obligate them to sin. Since Christians aren't obligated to sin in order to be consistent, Darwinians are not obligated to be selfish." Do you realize how absurd you're sounding? Christianity recognizes the existance of sin and Christians are obliged to turn AWAY from sinful behaviour. Darwinist philosophy has no concept of right or wrong, and in fact obliges anyone who believes in it to fight for one's survival at essentially any cost. "Do you consider Darwin a “true Darwinist”?" Darwin realized that no one would actually thought about it would accept the implications of true Darwinist philosophy. He certainly didn't want to accept it either, but he honestly thought it was true at the time. So, naturally he had to tone it down a little for it to gain wide acceptance. Today's Darwinists try their best to adhere to their philosophy while stifling its most glaring moral implications by suggesting that morality itself, even the sense of helping those that will not return favour (thereby an act that may be detrimental to one's survival), actually evolved by the same process that is inherently selfish.jasonng
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Dear Valerie, You're right that lots of Darwinists are good people. The question is whether or not Darwin-ism can account for why anyone "OUGHT" to be good. At first sight, it seems that the answer must be "Yes." After all, some Darwinists offer Darwinist accounts of the origin of behavior typically considered "good," and they do so in terms of, for example, the survival advantage to the species conferred by, say, altruism. The main problem I see with such accounts is that they don't really explain the "OUGHTNESS" of the moral "ought." For example, if someone says, "the oughtness of morally good actions is natural selection's way of telling us what we need to do to survive as a species," I would reply: "even supposing that that is true, why should I worry about the survival of the human species?" In other words: where does an impersonal, amoral natural process get the authority to oblige me to do anything? The most such a process can do is dictate what we need to do as a matter of fact if we are going to survive. But it doesn't have the wherewithal to transform that "what you need to do" into a "what you ought to do." Although I have really problems with the claim that you can't get an ought from an is, I think that it actually appplies---devastatingly---to attempts to give Darwinian accounts of moral oughtness. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT

The Shaw quote is beautiful. It is a perfect encapsulation of the rebellion of the human spirit against the brute determinism which is so inseparable from the materialism of Darwinism. I just ended a lengthy discussion on another thread with a very sincere and committed theistic evolutionist, though, who is a totally committed Christian as well as a believer in Darwinism. I cannot say that I can in any way accept this position, but I think it would be a mistake to impute to people who are Darwinists, especially of the strictly materialist variety, amorality. It is an inconsistent charge, since the essentialist believes that everyone has an immortal soul, and that this immortal soul is the substance or part within the human which connects it to higher values. THe materialist may deny they have this internal substance, but if they have it, they have it,whether they recognize it or not. So, if that is the case, then of course they will be able to form moral opinions and feel the inhibitions which accompany this higher inner essense. However, since creation is quite lawful, both physically and spiritually, and 'use it or lose it' might be a simple description of one such law, someone who categorically denies the existence of something in themselves for a long time in their spiritual history, will eventually cause that function to weaken to the point where it is no longer able to exert its proper energy. Today I think the extreme proponents of the most rigid materialism are such people. The inner voice is completely stilled. It is dead. The ability to feel its dying throes, which might be another way of describing nineteenth-century existentialism, is now completely over for such individuals. Therefore, arguing about it will not work, since arguing appeals only to the lesser or more material function of intellect. If such individuals are staunchly moral, as Richard Dawkins for example, claims to be, it is because they have so completely given themselves over to the belief in the brutal determinism of forces beyond their control that it terrifies them to imagine the implications of their own deeply held philosophy.

tinabrewer
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Sorry, but if Darwin's narrative is true, then I simply can't bring myself to really care about anything. As discussed in another recent thread, why be good? I suppose if (under this paradigm) one chooses to adhere to societal conventions, it is really only a matter of how one was raised, or habit or something of that nature. Personally, I find within myself the inclination to sink to unfathomable depths of depravity, which is what I need to be saved from. I have nothing in and of myself to be proud of or to cling to, I need to be changed into something else altogether.jacktone
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Yes, but valerie how does the Darwinian establish what is "good" or "evil"? Are these not illusory? There is no standard to measure them against under this world view. The Christian has an absolute objective standard to juxtapose such notions.Scott
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
j, That was awesome. I think I want that on my headstone.Scott
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
jasonng wrote: "I'm just saying that a person abiding by Darwinist philosophy has no obligation to be selfless, except by established societal morals and ethics." And by his or her own conscience. "Just because a Darwinist can be selfless does not mean the Darwinian philosophy entails any such concept. Thus a true Darwinist would be primarily concerned with his/her own survival over that of others." First of all, evolutionary theory does not predict that selfishness will always triumph. Cooperation and other pro-social behaviors are often better strategies than selfishness for getting your genes into future generations, which is what evolution is all about. Secondly, even if selfishness did tend to prevail, why should that oblige a "Darwinist" to promote it? If a "gravitationist" thinks that things on Earth tend to fall, is he honor-bound to oppose the manufacture of airplanes (or shelves, for that matter)? If he doesn't, does he earn your criticism for not being a "true gravitationist"? "Actually a Christian should by definition aim to be selfless and avoid sin as much as possible. The Christian belief is that the ideal person is selfless and does not sin." My point was to show you that the same logic you applied to Darwinians would, if applied to Christians, obligate them to sin. Since Christians aren't obligated to sin in order to be consistent, Darwinians are not obligated to be selfish. A Christian can believe that the world is full of evil without believing that she should promote evil, just as a Darwinian can see the struggle for existence everywhere in the living world without believing that it is a good or noble thing. Darwin himself was no fan of the brutality of evolution, writing: "What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature." Do you consider Darwin a "true Darwinist"?valerie
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply