Saturday, January 9, 2010

The Altruistic Darwinian

The altruistic Darwinian is like a toothless, old lion, an emasculated fool, an intellectual coward who lacks the courage or strength to live the life his philosophy demands. He boasts the theory "nature red in tooth and claw," yet in his social and political relationships he espouses altruism, the vaporous idea that a violent and egocentric universe allows for human compassion. At best he can argue that, like a pride of lions, the human pack must act in unison for its own protection and well being. That works well for women, perhaps, since prides are predominantly female with a distant male or two in the distance to breed often and kill occasionally. But such a pitiful analogy breaks down when another lion comes, a new sire, a new king, a new lord who will chase away the old lion, or gnash his jugular, and kill his cubs. Then the women, the pride, just cower in fear and willingly submit to a new king, altruistic indeed!

"Nothing is evil about the killing of an old lion or his cubs. Nothing is evil about the self-interested surrender of the fickle and fearful lioness to a new breeder; in fact, she naturally prefers the stronger male. Nothing is evil about death, or violence (violence is not "viol" in such a world), or seduction, or promiscuity, or infanticide. It's all natural," so it goes.

The altruistic Darwinist cannot abide the comparison, imagining that at least some among the human species, especially those of his ilk, have somehow evolved a benign benevolence towards their fellow apes. Presuming the relativity and therefore the ultimate worthlessness and meaninglessness of any Darwinian theory of good and evil; presuming the intellectual fodder called "altruism"; and presuming the immutable natural laws of "survival of the fittest" and random selection, the altruistic Darwinist must be, will be, and should be eaten alive by the very evolutionary theory he propounds, unless, of course, he admits that, if not among lions, then among humans, killing out of self-interest is Evil. But then the altruistic Darwinist shall be eaten alive again, for by the acknowledgement of Evil, he tacitly acknowledges Good.


The Militant Pacifist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Militant Pacifist said...

And…so…the altruistic Darwinian becomes schizophrenic. His mother taught him to “be nice,” but the world has taught him that “nice guys finish last.” 

His mother represents to him a transcendental ethic, but since his philosophy will not allow for the transcendent, he lives inconsistently as an atheistic “nice guy.”

But how much different from the altruistic Darwinist is the thoughtless Christian – who would “evaluate” the actions of Yahweh? 

If Yahweh is as He has disclosed Himself (in the law, the histories, the prophets and the new covenant scriptures), and if the words ascribed to His Son Jesus are true, “there is none good but one, that is, God (Mark 10:18b),” then there can be no external criteria by which to evaluate the actions of God.

If nothing greater than God exists (a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, Anselm of Canterbury), then it is clear that there can be no standard greater than God that can serve as His judge (i.e., no “external” criteria, no Platonic ideal, nothing, no “thing” greater to which to compare Him).

Therefore God is ex lex (above or outside of law). He is the law giver, and He is not accountable – for there is nothing and no one for Him to give an account to. What He deems good, is.

But men call God to account all of the time. 

Even the perfect and upright man who feared God and eschewed evil called Him to account. 

But in the latter end he repented of his folly, and cried out, “I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

If these things are true, is theodicy a “noble” endeavor?