Herein, we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, considering a discussion between Gary Gutting (professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) and Michael Ruse (philosopher of science who specializes in the philosophy of biology of Florida State University) that was published as “Does Evolution Explain Religious Beliefs?,” New York Times, July 8, 2014 AD
GARY GUTTING: What do you think of the claim that evolutionary accounts show that religion emerged not because of any evidence for its truth but because of its adaptive value?
Well, what do you think of the claim that evolutionary accounts show that evolutionary accounts emerged not because of any evidence for its truth but because of its adaptive value?
Gutting also states that “Of course” mind you, “evolutionary explanations are empirically well established on the biological level.” Sadly, this is a somewhat common statement that is meaningless. What are “evolutionary explanations” claiming that a finch changed into a finch? Claiming that life came about when lightning struck a swamp? Claiming that bacteria (which remain bacteria) can become immune to biotics? What exactly?
In any case, here is the interaction beginning with Ruse’s reply to the first point:
MICHAEL RUSE: It is interesting that you ask this question because recently I’ve found myself wrestling with this issue more than just about any other. As an ardent Darwinian evolutionist I think that all organisms, and I include us humans, are the end product of a long, slow process of development thanks to the causal mechanism of natural selection. So this means that I think features like the eye and the hand are around because of their adaptive value; they help us to survive and reproduce.
Thus, Ruse has faith in random, blind, unguided, “long, slow process of development.” He is aiming at religion as merely another Darwinian byproduct. Of course, it would be a logical fallacy termed the ad hominem aka genetic fallacy to claim that something is not true due to its origins.
Also, if religion is a Darwinian survival mechanism it is certainly the most successful one to have accidentally come about. But why, pray tell, are so many militant Atheists attempting to get theists to give up their Darwinian survival mechanism?
GARY GUTTING: Of course, evolutionary explanations are empirically well established on the biological level. But is the same true on the level of social and cultural life, especially among humans?
MICHAEL RUSE: I include society and culture here although I would qualify what I say. I don’t see being a Nazi as very adaptive, but I would say that the things that led to being a Nazi — for instance being open to indoctrination as a child — have adaptive significance. I would say the same of religion. The biologist Edward O. Wilson thinks that religion is adaptive because it promotes bonding and he might be right. But it can go biologically haywire, as in the case of the Shakers, whose religious prohibition on procreation had an adaptive value of precisely zero. So it is true that in a sense I see all knowledge, including claims about religious knowledge, as being relative to evolutionary ends. The upshot is that I don’t dismiss religious beliefs even though they ultimately can be explained by evolution.
I think everything can! I wouldn’t dismiss religious beliefs even if you could show me that they are just a byproduct of adaptation, as I think Darwin himself thought. It is as plausible that my love of Mozart’s operas is a byproduct of adaptation, but it doesn’t make them any the less beautiful and meaningful. I think you have to judge religion on its merits.
If he wants to play the Nazi indoctrination is just like religion then the very same thing can be said of evolution. After all, children’s books, movies, TV shows, animal shows, etc. are saturated with Darwinian evolution. Then the go through a minimum of a dozen years of public school wherein they learn the Darwinian evolution catechism.
The Shakers basically died out because they did not reproduce and this is an example of a Darwinian survival mechanism going haywire. It is a fact that increased secularism leads to decrease in reproduction. This is occurring, for example, in Europe wherein very fertile Muslims are taking over merely due to numbers as secularists are having fewer and fewer children.
If “all knowledge” is “relative to evolutionary ends” then Atheism and, of course, the theory of evolution are “relative to evolutionary ends.” This is very interesting in that it plays into the claim that was made in the article Evolutionary argument for Christianity or, why Atheists should convert.
Ruse is implying, or the logical conclusion of his claim is, that “all knowledge” is not relative to the ends of ascertaining empirical truth but “relative to evolutionary ends.” In other words, life, nature, evolution does not care about truth but only about survival. If a belief helps one survive then it does not matter if it is true or not as ascertaining empirical truth is not an imperative. Only survival is an imperative and that is so due it becoming so due to a long, slow series of random, blind and unguided happy accidents.
The next section will consider morality as a Darwinian survival mechanism.