Evolution and Humanism
by Jeff Smelser
|
| Morality, African tribes, Evolution and Humanism by Jeff Smelser |
While riding aboard a train last month, I had an interesting conversation with a woman who teaches linguistics at a nearby College. We spoke from very different perspectives. I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God; she doesn't. I believe that whatever the Bible teaches is true; she doesn't. She began to explain to me the value of a morality that changes with the times, and presumably becomes progressively more moral. One might well ask, by what standard can one measure this morality in order to discern that it is now "more moral" than it previously was. At the time, this question didn't occur to me.
Tactfully and politely, she told a story about members of an African tribe who did very well settling disputes among themselves on the basis of an ever evolving concept of their own blood relationships. Researchers interfered by producing written evidence gathered fifty years earlier which showed that the relationships were not as they were now believed to be. The tribal chief was adamant. The written records notwithstanding, things are as they are. What was her point? However true an ancient written record (for example, the Bible) may have been at one time, single-minded allegiance to it can keep a society from adapting to new truths.
It was an interesting story, but also one rather strangely chosen. A still primitive African tribe is an odd choice as a model for how society should meet the allegedly new challenges of today by means of progressive morals.
I told my seat mate that the whole notion of a changing moral standard, presumably changing for the better, presupposes that we were not created by God, but evolved by chance. Allow me now to dwell upon what I wish I had also said to her, if it had occurred to me.
If we did evolve by chance, there is no ultimate moral standard by which to gauge a changing morality. If there is no absolute red, how can anyone say one thing is more red than something else. If there is no absolute morality, how can it be said society is more moral now than it used to be?
To the evolutionist who says our morals have progressively evolved since we were apes, I would say that, if they have progressed, there is implied an absolute moral standard against which our morals can be measured. An absolute moral standard implies a higher being to whom we are accountable, and that suggests we are not here by chance. The only problem with my argument is the dubious nature of the proposition that we are more moral than apes. Sometimes I'm not sure we are.
But back to my seat mate's assumptions. If they are wrong, and we did not evolve from apes, but were created as human beings, then there is no case for a progressively evolving morality. The world is not getting better. Technology is becoming more sophisticated, but man's sins are still the same. Can you think of a new sin? Can you think of an old sin that is now obsolete because it is no longer committed?
Humanism is the name of the philosophy which supposes that man has within himself the power to redirect society in a new and better direction. (But what is "better" if there is, as humanists claim, no absolute good?) However, humanists are not new, and their philosophy is certainly not moral.
The American Humanist Association has been actively, evangelistically disseminating a philosophy that regards man as self reliant. In the September/October 1973 issue of the organization's mouthpiece, The Humanist, a manifesto was set forth outlining the philosophy. This was styled "Humanist Manifesto II," being a sequel to their first manifesto published forty years earlier. Among those listed as signatory were Isaac Asimov, Alan F. Guttmacher (of Planned Parenthood fame), Corliss Lamont (one time ACLU board member), Lester Mondale (Walter's brother), Andrei Sakharov, B. F. Skinner, Betty Friedan (founder of N.O.W.), and several Unitarian ministers.
The major themes of the document are that man controls his own destiny, faith in God is useless and distracting, man evolved and is a purely natural being and is therefore subject to no external morality, man has the right to do whatever he wants to do, and we should develop a one world government in which this philosophy prevails. (See box: Excerpts from "Humanist Manifesto II")
None of this is new. Man attempted to establish a single world nation in Genesis 11, and God put a stop to it. Whether you believe the Bible or not, you must admit that the philosophy was described over two thousand years ago. The notion of doing whatever one desires is as old as Eve's eating the forbidden fruit, and is lamented in Judges 21:25 where we read, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." To call this "autonomous ethics" may sound sophisticated, but there is nothing new about it. Certainly there is nothing new about the notion that man can find within himself all that he needs and therefore does not need God. It was described in Psalm 10:3-11. It was the philosophy of the Babylonians (Habakkuk 1:11) and particularly of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4). And ironically, it is reflected in the pitiful examples of idolatry where a man, longing for some object of worship, would construct one of his own design, with his own strength, and in his own image (Isaiah 44:9-20).
Finally, humanism is not moral. The very idea that a morality can be based on doing whatever feels good is ludicrous. Remember the book of Judges: "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." The natural result of that is expressed in Micah 2:1: "Woe to those who scheme iniquity, who work out evil on their beds! When morning comes, they do it, For it is in the power of their hands." A modern expression for this "morality" is "might makes right." Humanist Lucien Saumer concedes that "might makes right" is the foundation for humanist decision making. He even makes specific reference to abortion. He argues that the mother has more might than the fetus in her womb, and therefore it is her right to destroy the unborn child. That's no morality. That's depravity. It is not a recipe for progressive improvement of the human race.
Humanism sees that there is a human capacity to appreciate good. But Humanism, as did my seat mate, fails to understand that there is a God, and an absolute good. How empty is the philosophy that aims for a good while denying its existence.
Excerpts from Humanist Manifesto II "We have virtually conquered the planet.... Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty...alter the course of human evolution....
"The future is, however filled with dangers....
"Traditional moral codes...fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow....
"We believe...that traditional...religions that place ... God...above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species....the existence of a supernatural...is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity....
"But we can discover no divine purpose or providence.... humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves....
"Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns...and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits...the 'separable soul.' Rather...the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces...There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body....
"Moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational....We strive for the good life here and now...
"In the area of sexuality...intolerant attitudes...unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized....The many varieties of sexual exploration should not...be considered 'evil.'...
"We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds....the best option is to ...move toward ...a world community..."