His assertion is the same error as one of those that is key to Dawkins’ claim that evolution enables an intellectually satisfied atheism. It’s circular reasoning. The logic of the argument is “The material is all there is, therefore having a material explanation means nothing else exists and everything has been completely explained.” Of course, “when sociobiologists explain” anything may correlate closely with “when pigs fly”, depending on the definition of “explain”. Sociobiology puts out all sorts of explanations of myriad phenomena, but testing them is inherently difficult. Perhaps the best way to highlight its weakness is to do a sociobiological analysis of sociobiology. By claiming that everyone else is merely motivated by evolutionary self-interest, they present themselves as discerning and forthright while making others look bad. Thus, sociobiology is merely an evolutionary ploy.
Of course, it is true that humans are more motivated by evolutionary self-interest than we tend to realize or care to admit. Trying to see if we can think of a plausible evolutionary explanation for a particular aspect of society, including religion, is not unreasonable. But claiming that such speculation is definitive is unreasonable, as is claiming that having a physical explanation of the process thereby proves that there is nothing more to it than the physical process.
We should remember that God’s directions are not just laws; they are also good ideas. They are not arbitrary hoops, but rather are a guide to what’s good for us. So it is quite unsurprising that altruism and morals can convey evolutionary advantages, especially for a species with the capability of having culturally lasting memories like ourselves. Likewise, any thoughtful person can figure out that having societal rules like don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie are good ideas. But these facts do not make they particularly compelling as general moral laws - why shouldn’t I make exceptions for myself if I can get away with it?
7 Likes