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

Hi, Murray,

> (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.

I'm hardly one to speak up for Dawkins, but I get the feeling you're
doing him an injustice. I think the gist of "The Selfish Gene" is
that it is a call to arms - we as humans have evolved intelligent
thought - the ability to plan and imagine and simulate scenarios in
one's mind, and to take direct action against our selfish genes -
potentially to stop the destructive progress and endless struggle that
arises from the evolutionary process of blind, pitiless, indifferent
nature. In essence Dawkins would want us to rebel against evolution.
To him it is at the same time an incredibly elegant scientific idea,
and a horrific process that we are now intelligent enough to do
something about.

Maybe I've got you wrong but you seem to imply that Dawkins can't be
moral without some form of intellectual dishonesty.

Iain

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.