Re: Fwd: [asa] Is you doctor an evolutionist - if so, what then?

Hi Iain,

You're quite right - there IS a big difference between (A) believing
that evolution has happened vs (B) basing one's ethics on it.

BUT;

(1) Regardless of the distinction between (A) and (B) (above) people
still do (rightly or wrongly) take evolution as the starting point for
ethics. I'm merely observing that medical ethics might not correspond to
historical precedent in such a case.

(2) it is a historical fact that evolutionary theory HAS been taken as a
point of departure for medical ethics and that the consequences have
been quite disturbing - to say the least.

(3) when one is a thoroughgoing evolutionist of the sort Dawkins is,
then one's only option IS to base ethics in evolutionary theory - either
directly or indirectly. To do otherwise is to smuggle in assumptions
which aren't justified on the basis of one's original starting point.

Here the analogy is Descartes' philosophy: Descartes simply couldn't get
past "I think therefore I am" - itself a highly questionable claim -
without the arbitrary introduction of God into his philosophical
schemata thereby undoing his entire rationalist project.

In Dawkins case it's true that he need not ground his ethics in his
evolutionary theory - but only if he introduces some arbitrary ground of
ethics which "transcends" evolution. This is pretty hard to do when one
so strongly insists on evolution as a total theory of everything.

Of course, if Dawkins wants to concede that evolution is NOT a theory of
everything, I will quite happily agree. After all, I'm not the one
claiming that the natural order is all that exists. But if Dawkins does
want to introduce something outside of evolution, then I'll be very
interested as to what that something is and how that introduction is
itself to be justified.

Absent such arbitrary introductions, however, and we are left with
evolution as the basis of any ethical claim which evolutionists of
Dawkins' sort may wish to make. In which case, I think my original
reservations re the medical ethics of doctors who are evolutionists are
not lightly to be set aside.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Iain Strachan wrote:
> Hi Murray ,
>
> I don't think i can quite buy in to your speculation. Surely there is
> a big difference between believing that evolution as a process has
> happened, and believing that it is the best principle for intelligent
> humans to base their decisions upon.
>
> I believe Richard Dawkins once said "if I were God I wouldn't have
> done it by evolution". Atheists often use evolution as a reason for
> disbelieving in god because of the staggering amounts of suffering and
> waste involved.
>
> Doctors seek to reduce suffering and to preserve human life; something
> deemed much more important than survival of the fittest.--

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 1 14:50:22 2008