Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the mental-gymnatiscs-championship dept.

David P. Barash, an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington, writes in the NYT that every year he gives his students The Talk, not as you might expect, about sex, but about evolution and religion. According to Barash many students worry about reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary science and just as many Americans don’t grasp the fact that evolution is not merely a “theory,” but the underpinning of all biological science, a substantial minority of his students are troubled to discover that their beliefs conflict with the course material. "There are a couple of ways to talk about evolution and religion," says Barash. "The least controversial is to suggest that they are in fact compatible." Stephen Jay Gould called them "nonoverlapping magisteria," noma for short, with the former concerned with facts and the latter with values." But Barash says magisteria are not nearly as nonoverlapping as some of them might wish. "As evolutionary science has progressed, the available space for religious faith has narrowed: It has demolished two previously potent pillars of religious faith and undermined belief in an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God."

The twofold demolition begins by defeating what modern creationists call the argument from complexity - that just as the existence of a complex structure like a watch demands the existence of a watchmaker, the existence of complex organisms requires a supernatural creator. "Since Darwin, however, we have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness. Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon." Next to go is the illusion of centrality. "The most potent take-home message of evolution is the not-so-simple fact that, even though species are identifiable (just as individuals generally are), there is an underlying linkage among them — literally and phylogenetically, via traceable historical connectedness. Moreover, no literally supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens; we are perfectly good animals, natural as can be and indistinguishable from the rest of the living world at the level of structure as well as physiological mechanism." Finally there is a third consequence of evolutionary insights: a powerful critique of theodicy, the effort to reconcile belief in an omnipresent, omni-benevolent God with the fact of unmerited suffering. "But just a smidgen of biological insight makes it clear that, although the natural world can be marvelous, it is also filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death — and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things. The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator."

Barash concludes The Talk by saying that, although they don’t have to discard their religion in order to inform themselves about biology (or even to pass his course), if they insist on retaining and respecting both, they will have to undertake some challenging mental gymnastic routines. "And while I respect their beliefs, the entire point of The Talk is to make clear that, at least for this biologist, it is no longer acceptable for science to be the one doing those routines."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:06PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:06PM (#100409) Journal

    moral frameworks that are totally disconnected from anything even remotely like what the general population would consider "Moral". And how what is considered "Moral" can vary based on the culture, ethnic group or even family that a person is from.

    That is true, but it is important to remember that morality systems are always evolving, too. To me as someone who trained in the social sciences morality and culture are part of the continuum of strategies lifeforms employ to survive and seek advantage. While acknowledging that cultural tropes and moral structures are "believed in" and deeply held, it is possible to examine them clinically for their utilitarian value. It is possible that idiosyncracies of certain cultures confer practical advantages to the viability of the system entire, even if only as a pressure valve or continual counterexample to adherents as what not to do. Think the ladyboys of Thailand or the burakumin (the untouchables) of Japan.

    Anyway it's a fascinating area of study that is certainly scientific but lacks the experimental rigor of the "hard" sciences precisely because it is so devilishly difficult to design experiments that are reproducible. Human subjects are always wanting to think for themselves and fuck with the experiment. So it actually makes the "soft" sciences much, much harder than the "hard" scientists. Physicists and chemists have it easy. And it's why Milgram was so famous, because he was about the only guy who was able to design experiments with profound impact (he's the Six Degrees of Separation and the Human Beings Will Torture Each Other When Commanded to Do So guy).

    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3