Excellent post, GP. If you ask an evolutionist why perpetuating the human race is a good thing, you won’t get an answer. I tried really hard a while back. Evolution doesn’t give value, it just (at best) explains how things have come to pass. It may account, for example, for a common practice of something that looks like altruism but, as you imply, it doesn’t follow that altruism is good.

The other thing missing is the sense of choice: evolution is deterministic, whereas morality (as I understand it) is about choice.

Of course, none of this means evolution didn’t happen (or isn’t happening). I, for one, believe it did and is. I just believe we get our sense of value from elsewhere. In God’s absence, all we have are facts. The facts are exciting, of course, but it’s annoying when people like Dawkins try to commandeer value by saying evolution can account for it. He should just be content with the facts.

As for humanism, I really don’t know how an evolutionist can be a humanist at all. A few months ago, in the midst of the theist/theist affray, I tried to get agreement on humanism as a common starting point. The theists were up for it, as were some atheists. However, some other atheists declined – on the basis of evolution. “Humans are nothing special”, they said; and, in saying this, I think they were quite consistent.

Not sure how much of a morality can be built on the proposition, “Humans are nothing special”. If it’s a morality bent on nothing better than the reflex protection of the human species, I can see that morality being rather ruthless. For example, the species might have a better chance of surviving if there was a very substantial cull. No wonder Dawkins et al are at pains to conjure a more respectable morality out of evolution – but, I think they’re reaching.

Pax,

This is a refreshingly erudite and intelligent article that addresses issues that constitute not only an "American problem", but also one which is of apparent concern to many Australians - particularly those of fundamentalist Christian persuasion.

That it comes from a philosopher rather than a scientist, however, does not enhance its credibility. Yes, evolution (and natural selection - which is strangely absent from Ruse's discussion other than in passing) is a concept that attracts socially derived moral valence. From time immemorial, humans have attached value-laden meaning to natural phenomena.

However, Ruse stretches logic when he segues between Huxley and Dawkins. The resort to fringe sociobiologist E.O. Wilson doesn't improve matters much.

Some comments thus far are interesting - e.g. GP's apparent blindness to the adaptive value of religious and 'spiritual' belief systems. The invention of religion was one of humankind's most adaptive social strategies for millennia.

It is only lately that such nonsense has been rendered culturally and socially maladaptive, and hence obsolete :)

Despite the best efforts of the 'Florid' professor, I'm not convinced that those of us who don't subscribe to hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo are necessarily bespelled by the alternate purported religions of agnosticism or atheism.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that a nation, comprised of people of whom a majority believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, would be led by someone who is on record as claiming to have had God's approval to invade Iraq.

goodthief wrote:

"As for humanism, I really don’t know how an evolutionist can be a humanist at all. A few months ago, in the midst of the theist/theist affray, I tried to get agreement on humanism as a common starting point."

Evolutionist? That makes it sound as though one who accepts evolution is an ideologue like a communist or fascist. A humanist can accept evolution in the same way that the humanist accepts gravity. That makes the humanist neither a gravitist nor an evolutionist - just one who accepts scientific evidence.

Ah now good thief when you say;

“The theists were up for it, as were some atheists. However, some other atheists declined – on the basis of evolution. “Humans are nothing special”, they said; and, in saying this, I think they were quite consistent.”

I was wondering if you might be referring to our little jam over in Preachers and Presidents? If you are then you might just be engaging in a slight misrepresentation. I thought the position put was that we had difficulty in regarding the human species as MORE special than other life, not that we though humans were nothing special.

While the religious fundamentalists certainly try to narrow the applicable morality band to their ilk and proscribe a particular immorality to those they consider unenlightened, I certainly don’t group you with them good thief. I would however argue that our position reflected a greater morality than the one you purport to have. It is certainly more encompassing in that it extends to all life.

Let’s contemplate an infant. Their empathy initially extends to their mother then later to siblings and father. In adolescence it encompasses friends and extended relations, and as the person matures it may take their wider community, those of their faith, their countrymen and yes even the entire human race. If we are really lucky this not exclusively human trait may extend to other living creatures and even ecosystems.

I might argue that true morality is derived from true empathy.

In a way good thief your morality might just be suffering from theistic inspired arrested development.

In the words of the article “Grown-ups have simply gone beyond that.”

Goodthief, CJM;

Did you read my post? This well written article is not original, self-plagiary. It appears first in Issues and is at a tangent-in-opinion to Michael's recent ISIS book review. I wont say anything Florida State but Michael should know better.

Sorry Sells,

I think you will find that Michael is an "unbeliever", who feels, like me, unlike you, researchers should use authorative sources. Here, you know I have criticised Dawkins outside his field; despite my concerns regarding theology. Albeit, I respect Peter Abelard and Martin Luther. Sells, which atheists do you respect?

Darwin it might suprise you to learn was influenced "The Essay of Population" (1838) by "Reverend" Tomas Malthus (Bronowski, 1973). Ouch! That must hurt a religionist Irony?

Michael,

As you very well know, H.G. Wells was also an accomplished historian. You should have mentioned that fact: An established non-fiction writer too.

I find Richard Leakey more compelling than Dawkins. Herein, life has existed for one billion years. A different path of life died out in the Pre-Cambrian extinction, 500 million BP. The alternative path expanded greatly in the Cambrian period and became use and millions of other animals.

If humanity is a god's goal; why have a five hundred milllion year path terminate? Seems a needless loss of billions of animals. Note this is not necessarily natural selection, but some sort of massive extinction event.

Thomas H. Huxley on Charles Darwin:

"The conception of evolution was henceforward irrepressible, and it incessantly reappears, in one shape or another, up to the year 1858, when Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace published their 'Theory of Natural Selection.' The ' Origin of Species ' appeared in 1859; and it is within the knowledge of all whose memories go back to that time, that, henceforward, the doctrine of evolution has assumed a position and acquired an importance which it never before possessed." [Huxley, "Science and Culture: And Other Essays", 1882]

Before Darwin and Wallace first work there was Erasmus Darwin's "Zoonomia," 1794 and regarding morphology, Goethe (1791)

Michael, I have enjoyed reading your work, but please remember acknowledge, acknowledge, acknowledge :-).

Well spotted Oliver. Apologies.

However - I think my point still stands :)