Christian ethics and human evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
22

Roger, I think there was quite a controversy in the early Christian church as to Christ’s combined human/divine nature. They settled, as you say, on his being fully human and fully divine. But that does not explain it. It still is a mystery. As a scientist, I love mysteries. They challenge us to put our minds to work to explain as much of the mystery as possible. What my (all too feeble) mind has come up with fits into the statement I have highlighted in your quote above.

Before he set off the Big Bang, God planned that out of all the resultant creatures there would be one like Him, as much as possible, that is. In this respect Christ, still an Idea in the Mind of God, can be seen as: "true God from true God; Light from Light; born before all ages." Once he had created the simplest form of life on this earth, God used a method we now call evolution to develop marvelous variety and complexity. However, in spite of its success in producing variety and complexity, evolution contained an element of selfishness, a kind of amorality which stood in the way of producing a creature worthy of the sobriquet, Image of God. It was not until the brain of a certain primate, Homo sapiens, reached a critical size so that its neural circuitry could be “programmed” as Mind and act as Conscience that even a potential Image Bearer existed. That was Adam. Most of Adam’s progeny fell far short of that goal. One, Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilled it, and became the Christ who shows us the Way to the Father.

Roger, I cannot expect that this scenario will have enough appeal to you (or to the majority of today’s Christians) as has the orthodox doctrine that has served for 2,000 years, but it may make some sense to some of today’s youth who may be drawn to scientism and who might, therefore, ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater.’ Your honest opinion?
Al Leo

23

@aleo,

granted Darwin and Dawkins believe that evolution is based on amoral selfishness, but that does not mean that it is. E. O. Wilson in his book The Social Conquest of the Earth belies this. Ants. bees, lions, birds, and other social animals support the fact that animals are not basically selfish. Some animals are more social that others. As Karl Barth pointed out God’s invention of sex and families are the basis of sociality.

The problem with Darwin’s Myth that creatures are basically selfish or amoral is that it is false. It has never been verified scientifically. Yes, there are some examples that seem to indicate this, but a relatively few examples taken out of context do not prove a major scientific theory.

The distortion of reality by bad science does not help anyone. In particular it provides cover to those who want to justify their selfishness as we see today in the US. We must not forget that Darwinism helped justify the imperialism of England in the last two centuries. Today we need a new ethos to counter Putin/Trumpism.

24

Reading this thread, the thought occurred to me that ethics evolved along with the human ability to be evil. “Survival of the fittest” is not necessarily a matter of getting stronger and meaner. Cooperation and self-sacrifice can increase the population of a species as a whole, even if some individuals do not do as well as they might. I am thinking of the cases in battle where one soldier falls on a hand grenade to save many other soldiers’ lives.

Since humans evolved he ability to eliminate all competitors, the human race could have wound up becoming too small in numbers for long-term survival. By evolving a conscience and a sense of right and wrong, humans have become the most successful mammal on earth.

1 Like
25

So true. Being fit might mean being an ability to get away, sociability, lots of other non-aggressive stuff.

26

@Larry_Bunce

Thank you for your response.

The question is this. Is “survival of the fittest” a technical term which describes a particular a scientific process or a general statement of how reality works. It is clear to me that it is a technical scientific term that needs to be discussed scientifically.

In the final paragraph of The Origin of Species Darwin described Natural Selection as the War of Nature. This is description is very useful to nonbelievers because there are no rules of war. [Now there supposed to be, but today we see in Syria and other conflicts these rules are not being followed.]

Since there are no rules to the war of nature, NS, scientists do not have to explain the rules by which Natural Selection works. Since there are no rules, this is no science, because science is about rules.

Also because there are no rules there is no God. God is about harmony and harmony is based on rational rules. This is what science and theology have in common. Science is based on natural law, while ethics is based on moral law. Without God there is no rational basis for natural law or moral law. Science is based on the idea that the universe is a cosmos, harmonious whole founded on rational law. This of course does not mean that the natural world is totally harmonious nor is the social world, however we can say they are basically harmonious.

The choice then is between war and peace, between chaos and harmony. Darwin and Dawkins choose war and chaos, because their worldview was biased in that direction. I choose peace and harmony because Christianity is biased in that direction and science confirms this. There is no other alternative where we can pick and choose the nature of reality.

27

These characterizations of Darwin and of science are unacceptably misleading.

2 Likes
28

War has very definite rules. Each side tries to kill more than the other side does, until one side or the other decides to give up. The “rules of war” merely concern which tactics both sides agree beforehand not to use, such as poison gas. It was banned not because it was cruel or too horrible, but because experience showed that a change in wind direction could cause it to affect your own troops.

Biblical morality is not an arbitrary set of rules that God imposed upon humanity, but the banning of activities that most people agree hurts other people or give someone else an unfair advantage. By teaching that these rules come directly from God, and will be punished in the afterlife, religions avoid the expense of creating law enforcement agencies and a judicial system.

Evolution has many rules that can be studied scientifically. While “anything goes” may apply to the tactics used for survival, the rule is that creatures that leave the most offspring have the best chance for survival, provided that they don’t die out from overcrowding. Variability within a species allows that species to adapt to a changing environment, even if some individuals die out due to harmful mutations. The sickle cell trait kills many African-Americans, but in Africa that same trait provides some protection from malaria.

29

I have found this a wonderful discussion. It is a joy to interact with Christians who have the courage to grapple with evolution and its implications for our faith and ethics. Thanks again to everyone.

Studying the comments, I find many issues at play, but a key problem seems to be the tension between self-interest/self-care on the one hand, and altruism (love) and sacrificial altruism (agape love) on the other.

As Albert and Larry note, in social species, non-self-interested or altruistic behavior occurs. In humans, this is common and even involves self-sacrifice, as Larry mentions. Humans cooperate in remarkable ways and on scales not seen in other species. We are the social species. The existence of cooperation and altruistic behavior was a huge problem for evolutionary biologists since it seemed to contradict the theoretical necessity of self-interest. This generated intense research with a series of sub-theories emerging from the 1960s to the 1990s. These included the sub-theories of inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, and indirect reciprocity. As a result, evolutionary scientists seem, arguably, to have almost solved the problem. As Stephen notes, it is inaccurate to characterize the Darwinian view as a lawless war of all against all. Larry is correct: it is complex and there are laws. But what is relevant to this discussion is that cooperation and altruism are social in origin and function. They are intra-species and intra-group. I help other humans, normally only humans within my group. In-group preference (tribalism) appear to be evolved traits that can be good in promoting deeper more intimate within-group community but bad in promoting out-group hostility (warfare, as Larry mentions, or nativism as we are seeing in our own country at present).

Humans and pre-humans are believed to have evolved in small, relatively stable, long-term social groups (perhaps 75-150 individuals). Sociality is deeply embedded in our evolutionary history and biology. In fact, there is neuropsychological evidence that our brains are “designed” to operate within groups around this size. This gives one pause to wonder about the optimum church size and about the impact of modern mass culture and society on our mental and spiritual health.

So evolutionary science confirms that we are profoundly social beings. We expend a great deal of time, effort, and brain power attending to social life: social status, power relationships, reciprocity, kinships, friendships, hierarchies, male/female relations, in-group/out-group relations, and so on. The fact is we need deep community with other people in order to be what we are evolved to be, or, to be what God intended us to be. Social community is the “normal” environment in which humans are “designed” to live. And God has provided for this need in establishing the church – the local community of believers. Jesus and the New Testament make it clear that the church is our vital society – the social “in-group” of Jesus Christ – deeply cooperative and altruistic, yet open to outsiders. Sadly, American culture is extremely individualistic, and this has badly undermined the American church and distorted Christian spirituality.

So, as Larry and “Beaglelady” note, in humans, self-interest is deeply intertwined with social life, and indeed, it may often be in my self-interest to act altruistically within social contexts. In fact, in some contexts, I may even feel myself naturally disposed to act altruistically, rather than self-interestly. Nonetheless, the tension between self-interest and social obligation is something we are all familiar with. Perhaps knowledge of the biological origins of this tension might help us deal with it more effectively within supportive church communities.

I hope this contributes to the discussion, and I look forward to further comments from everyone.

2 Likes
30

Roger, you and I look at the same set of facts, and we come to different conclusions. Could it be that both of us have a certain conclusion in mind, and we focus on the facts that support our personal choice? You chose lions as an example of an animal that is not basically selfish. Yet the male lion will drive off the females who have made a kill and satisfy his hunger before letting the females and young satisfy theirs. The first priority, when a more powerful male takes over a pride, is to seek out and kill all the cubs that he had not sired–an amoral act that gives his genes a better chance of representation in the next generation. In coining the term “selfish gene” for such actions, Dawkins merely demonstrates his skill as a communicator. Why not “give the Devil his due?”

On the other hand, you seem to view E. O. Wilson’s work in a more favorable light. In my opinion, his brand of atheism, while more subtle, is more dangerous to the Faith of young, budding scientists than is Dawkins’. As to Barth’s contribution to this thread, the kind of sex that promotes the instinctive social structure of ant and termite colonies can only serve as a negative model for humankind’s effort to form a society based upon the Golden Rule. I don’t know where you found Karl Barth’s pronouncement on God’s reason for inventing sex, but that would not be the first time he went off the deep end.

Roger, by using the word “basically” in the above quote, you pass up the opportunity to explain how Sin appeared in a world that God made “perfect”. If you allow that God allows evolution to express elements of selfishness as well as cooperation in creating new varieties, then the concept of Morality can appear only after one type of creature acquires a Mind and a Conscience. Morality requires a conscious choice. If we accept the premise that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then God knew Sin would appear in a world he created. Instead of postulating some kind of Evil Spirit at war with God, why not the more compelling postulate that God wished one of his creatures to attain at least the potential to become an image of its Creator. Failure of an individual to make a reasonable attempt to do so is Sin; and attempts of that individual to assert power over others, preventing them to attain that image–that is an even greater Sin. Is it heresy to think this idea might be phrased so that it could become a powerful sermon?
Al Leo

1 Like
31

@Larry

What you call “rules” are not rules, but a purpose. The purpose of war is to defeat the opponent. However this is not a positive purpose, but a negative, destructive, so even a defensive war which might be seen as justified is negative and detrimental to those who fight it.

“War is,” as one great general said, “Hell!.” War is a last resort used only when absolutely necessary. If you are right, then war has no morality. It seems that that those who view life as a war for survival do think that there is no morality.

I would agree that that Biblical morality is not arbitrary. Many have noted that Commandments 6-10 are stated negatively. You shall not murder, etc. However most people are not Jewish, but Christians who are called to Love your neighbor, which is positive. We are called to tell the truth in the strongest of terms, instead of just not to tell a lie.

The rules of evolutionary change are the rules of ecology, which is why ecology is so important. Variation allows for diversity, which allows organisms to adapt to their ecological niches andf not sie out from overcrowding or harmful mutations. Diversity also means that organisms need to cooperate. Sadly many people think that uniformity is better than diversity, and wealth more important than sharing.

Christianity turns Darwinian ethics on its head. “Those who seek to save their lives will lose them, and those who lose their lives for My sake will save them.”

32

There are also rules of engagement, protocols for surrendering, protocols for treating prisoners of war, etc.

33

@aleo,

I thi8nk that our differences reveal a basic difference between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology. Roman Catholics believe that baptism gives the believer the power to choose for the good, but his/he4r salvation is based on how well he /she uses this power.

Protestants following Luther say that the OT law gives people the ability to know what is right and wrong, but not the ability to do what is truly right. That is, the laws makes humans aware of sin, but it does not save from sin. Only grace through faith in Jesus Christ can save humans from sin.

Per Genesis God gave Adam and Eve the Law not to e4at of the fruit. When they deliberately went against God, they became sinners and developed a sin consciousness. The OT law was another step in this process of preparing humanity for the co9ming of the Savior, Who is able to deliver humans from the power of sin, if not from sin itself.

On the other hand Darwin and his view of evolution claim that life was always under the power of sin and spiritual death. Their view is the Selfish Gene that says that life is war without any hope of peace. I do not endorse any kind of atheism, but the new scientific understanding of Wilson is better science than Dawkins and makes him more willing to work with believers toward as common cause of controlling the pollution of God’s Creation.

34

Once you understand the ethics of evolution as in the law that controls it you can easily see that it is in full harmony with Christian teaching. Survival fitness in evolution is not based on selfishness if the individual self but on the capacity to love thy neighbour like thyself, e.g. to give to the system, to be altruistic and look after others in the system as otherwise you might delete significant parts of the system. If we fail to recognise our neighbour and to help him we might end up surprised about having masterminded our own eradication. Bees are a good example for a neighbour we better look after.
As such you will find that ethics does not “evolve” in terms of generatig superior ethical principles but it is evolution, the unfolding of the great plan that once all opened points us back to the beginning, to the initial word of God, as it is the only “ethical truth” the fundamental rule for existence. It allows for a limited degree of selfishness to exist, even if only as a warning to others, so you should not expect the ethically wrong not to raise it’s head.

1 Like
35

I’m sorry, but bees are not ethical and nature is not altruistic. That is an abuse of English semantics. I think all this seeing some beautiful morality system that evolution establishes and Christianity echoes is nonsense. There is no more morality in evolution than there is in gravity or weather patterns. Evolution is a natural process. It is completely amoral. It doesn’t teach us anything about what it means to be human on a moral level. This whole conversation is very bizarre to me.

3 Likes
36

The proposition that evolution gives rise to a coherent ethical system is analogous in my mind to claiming the biological process of sexual reproduction gives rise to morality-based monogamy. Maybe the ethics of monogamy were tied at one point to a situation created by the existence of sexual reproduction, but the ethics of it all completely transcends the biological process. We aren’t faithful because sexual reproduction happens. It is possible to have a monogamous relationship purely for moral reasons, divorced from procreation or the possibility of procreation.

It is possible to argue, based on evolutionary psychology, that human monogamy is harmful and unnatural and disadvantageous. You can see what you want to see when you try to derive morality from an amoral natural process.

2 Likes
38

Comparing gravity with evolution is something like comparing apples to oranges. Rocks cannot think, but organisms, esp. humans can. While it is true that many organisms do not think, evolution has created a situation where organisms have the ability to learn based on sensual perception. They can learn from experience.

There is a wide continuum between relatively simple micro organisms and human beings, but it is an important continuum, because that is how God created humans to be moral. The fact is that evolution itself destroys the absolute line between the human and the natural, since we humans are the product of a natural process. In a sense it also destroys the absolute line between the natural and the spiritual, because God created evolution.

The God Who teaches the momma bird to care for her chicks, also teaches humans to care for their children, the primary difference is that humans have a choice, while birds really do not.

God did create sex to facilitate evolution and the Creation, but God knows how to give things many levels of meaning and purpose. Sex is a prime example of this.

The process, which began with Jesus, of breaking down the dualistic understanding of life and reality, natural and supernatural, nature and humanity, has continued led by science. Humans have not adapted their thinking to the Reality God has revealed to us through Jesus and science, the Reality of the physicality, rationality, and spirituality of life.

39

Evolution can’t think any better than rocks and has no volition, and doesn’t “create” in the sense it seems you are using it. God created humans with a capacity for moral choice.

God created gravity too. I don’t see how your conclusions follow from your premises. Why doesn’t gravity destroy the line between the natural and the spiritual?

Jesus came to reconcile us to God, not to break down the dualistic understanding of life and reality, natural and supernatural, nature and humanity. Jesus has nothing to do with evolution. People who study Scripture and history do not ever summarize Jesus Messsianic mission in your idiosyncratic terms.

2 Likes
40

God created humans through evolution with a capacity for moral choice, however evolution did not create humans ex nihilo. God used evolution to create humans out of series of ape and homo species each one closer to having the ability to make moral choices. Further God through evolution rewarded those species and members of species who made positive moral choices using their brain or instincts. As @marvin Adams said cooperation increases the fitness of a species.

Why doesn’t gravity destroy the line between the natural and the spiritual?

Gravity does destroy the absolute line between the natural and the spiritual. We now understand the basis of gravity to be E = mc squared, which says that all things are interdependent and therefore are spiritual, physical, and rational.

Jesus cannot reconcile humans to God without breaking down the dualist understanding of life and reality, natural and the spiritual, which keeps humans separate from God.

Jesus has everything to do with evolution, because Jesus is the Logos, Who created evolution. John 1:3 (NIV2011)
3 Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.

People who study Scripture and history do not ever summarize Jesus Messsianic mission in your idiosyncratic terms.

But the Gospel of John does, and I will take the Gospel every time over human interpretation.

1 Like
41

To recall the original question of this thread, may I ask both Larry and “Beaglelady” what our evolutionary background might tell us about why humans fight wars. What factors in our evolutionary history help us understand why we fight? How might these things relate to the morality of war?

42

it may well be that evolution appears unethical and amoral to you and does not teach you anything about humanity or morality, but that is your perception. Do you think there is no truthvalue in the process that controls evolution? Evolution does not cause morality but morality causes evolution.