Evolution and Divine Revelation:Synergy, Not Conflict, in Understanding Morality

Templeton/A.S.A. Lecture, Baylor University, March 25, 2004

Loren Haarsma Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College

For this talk, I will• accept strong scientific

evidence for human evolutionary history;

• assume no serious hermeneutical objections;

• assume God created humans at least in part through evolutionary processes;

• focus on areas with the highest potential for “conflict” between science and theology.

Theologians ask if a behavior is right

Traditional Christian theology would say that

• Morality has an absolute, objective basis in God’s will (even if we humans do not all agree, and do not perfectly understand, that will).

• Religious beliefs are not purely subjective; they can be objectively correct or objectively incorrect.

Biologists ask if a behavior is adaptive

• We assume guilt is not adaptive in lions.

• Is guilt (or, more generally, morality) adaptive in humans?

Two types of claims:

1. Scientific claim: We can construct accurate evolutionary explanations for the existence of human moral and religious sentiments. (E.g. Moral and religious sentiments are adaptive.)

2. Philosophical claim: If these evolutionary explanations are scientifically accurate, then human moral and religious beliefs cannot have any objective status or truth content.

Two types of responses:

1) Attack the scientific credibility of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

2) Reject the philosophical extrapolations which go beyond the science.

Evolutionary accounts of morality usually start with altruism

• Everyday meaning of “altruism”: Having feelings of goodwill towards others; being nice without expecting anything in return.

• Sociobiological definition of “altruism”: acts which reduce an organism’s own reproductive chances while benefiting the reproductive chances of others.

Scientifically established theories for evolution of limited altruism

1) Parental care

2) Kin selection

3) Reciprocal altruism

• Theoretically well understood

• Examples observationally confirmed

A scientific “baby”: Hypotheses for evolutionary / genetic

basis of altruism beyond kin & reciprocation

1) Altruism and morality are non-adaptive side effects of other adaptive traits.

2) Culture pushes (or trumps) genes.

3) “Individual” selection ― altruism & morality are adaptive for individuals.

4) “Group” selection ― altruism & morality are adaptive at group level.

Common features amongst these evolutionary hypotheses:

• presuppose a critical role for human intelligence, memory, rationality;

• presuppose long-term interpersonal interactions in complex social groups.

Under these conditions, evolution of morality is thought to be possible, perhaps inevitable.

Some philosophical bathwater

1) Extrapolating from “how morality evolved” to “why morality exists”

Some philosophical bathwater1) Extrapolating from “how morality

evolved” to “why morality exists”“Morality, or more strictly our

belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive end.”

--Ruse & Wilson, 1993

This seems to be what Donald MacKay called the fallacy of “nothing but-tery”

Consider a hypothetical robot which has self-replication subroutines….

Some philosophical bathwater

2) Labeling every action which improves reproductive success as “selfish”

An equally supportable philosophical “spin”: being nice to others causes individuals and groups to flourish.

Humans have a rich spectrum of motives.

Some philosophical bathwater3) Claiming that a genetic basis for

behavior undercuts free will.

In evolutionary theory, behavioral plasticity is often adaptive. If anything, this argues in favor of some forms of free will.

It is not evolutionary theory per se, but reductionist versions of Philosophical Materialism, that deny free will.

Some philosophical bathwater 4) Claiming that a genetic basis for behavior

undercuts moral responsibility

• The more we know about biological factors which affect our behavior, the more we can take responsibility for our actions.

Some philosophical bathwater5) The “science-or-God” fallacy

The biblical picture is that God is in control of, and God can use, “natural” processes and apparently random events.

Some philosophical bathwater6) Theological explanations and

mechanistic explanations both appear to answer “Why” questions – in apparently conflicting ways.

• Examples: • Why do polar bears have thick fur?• Why do humans have religious sentiments?• Why would humans come to believe

certain religious propositions?

Some philosophical bathwater6) Theological explanations and

mechanistic explanations both appear to answer “Why” questions – in apparently conflicting ways.

Evolutionary arguments function at the group level, not the level of individuals.

Claims about why individuals believe certain things require auxiliary neuropsychological hypotheses.

Some philosophical bathwater7) Religion may be adaptive regardless

of whether or not God exists. Does this undercut belief in God?

A scientific explanation for the existence of religious sentiments should not undercut belief in God’s existence any more than a scientific explanation for stars and planets should. God can work through natural processes.

Some philosophical bathwater 8) Moral Relativism

Does Philosophical Materialism imply Moral Relativism?

This is an area of ongoing debate amongst Philosophical Materialists.

To all Christians who enter the debate regarding Philosophical Materialism and Moral Relativism, I ask:

• avoid circular arguments and oversimplification of “Materialism,”

• avoid promoting an unbiblically low view of creation and general revelation.

1. Our moral and religious sentiments are intrinsic parts of our created human nature.

2. God also has personally revealed himself to human beings.

Divine special revelation augments, rather than replaces, evolutionary

accounts of human moral and religious sentiments.

Evolutionary accounts, in and of themselves, are necessarily

incomplete, in both scope and content.

Divine special revelation adds to our understanding of moral and religious

sentiments:

1) Belief content

2) Clarification of ambiguities

3) Objective standards

4) Expansive scope (“love enemies”)

5) Eternal significance

6) Context of divine relationship

7) Accountability to our Creator

8) Ordering of moral obligations

9) Divine grace10)Command to extend

grace