How many times have we heard bad behaviour justified as follows: “Too bad…the world’s not fair”? Such a response, which leaves us powerless to prevent the continuation of the "unfairness", is frustrating. What many do not realize is that it also lies on the cusp of the conflict between Darwinism and Christianity.
Most of us who are Catholic, or follow some other form of Christianity accept, somewhat routinely, the validity of the Theory of Evolution. We, the Renaissance Man included, have accommodated it into our belief system. It is not particularly difficult to reconcile evolution with the belief that God created the “heavens and the earth”; mostly we just assume that He set it all in motion and things just “evolved”, so to speak.
To many of us, therefore, the so-called “Creationists” are sometimes a bit of an embarrassment. They espouse a literal view of natural development which, they say, contradicts evolution. Many (though perhaps not all) tend to be evangelical or fundamental Christians who want to read the Bible literally. Thus, they have to propound a version of natural history that flies in the face of the fossil and geological record.
That said, it is important to recognize the down side of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. While it may operate satisfactorily as an explanatory system, it is completely unacceptable as a basis of a moral or “civilizational” system. If we move from saying that “survival of the fittest is how things happen” to “survival of the fittest is how things should happen” then we may potentially lose our essential humanity.
Nietzche’s superman, Hitler’s superior race, and eugenics are all based upon the elevation of Darwinism from a description to a recipe. Under all of these, the weakest, the less valuable, or more useless are pushed aside. Of course, it is generally the elite who will self-define themselves as the strong, the valuable and useful.
It is at this point that Darwinism comes into conflict with Christianity. Christianity is founded on the protection, not the discarding, of the weak. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me” or “The meek shall inherit the earth” are just two examples in which Christ elevated the weaker and disadvantaged members of humanity.
As a religion Christianity is, by definition, a moral code. Thus, it stands in stark opposition to Darwinism. It is in Darwinism, via Nietzche, that we can find Hitler’s philosophical or moral justification for the extermination of the Jews. It can also provide a foundation justifying genetic manipulation, euthanasia and abortion. When we add in a bit of Sartre’s concept that there are no moral absolutes, the recipe becomes a witches’ brew.
Fundamentalist Christians, in their revolt against the Theory of Evolution, are onto something. They reject the idea of Darwinism as a potential moral or philosophical base for the ordering of civilization and have chosen to manifest their rejection by attacking the factual basis underlying Darwin’s theories.
The Renaissance Man takes a different approach. It is unnecessary to defend the values of Christianity by denying facts. Christianity does not exist in defiance of facts. The Renaissance Man prefers that the facts stand as they are, and that Darwin’s theories, though useful as an explanatory tool, never be elevated to the status of a moral system. This must be vigorously opposed.
In the end, the Renaissance Man is left to conclude that Christianity is more humanistic (and humanitarian) than Darwinism.
Most of us who are Catholic, or follow some other form of Christianity accept, somewhat routinely, the validity of the Theory of Evolution. We, the Renaissance Man included, have accommodated it into our belief system. It is not particularly difficult to reconcile evolution with the belief that God created the “heavens and the earth”; mostly we just assume that He set it all in motion and things just “evolved”, so to speak.
To many of us, therefore, the so-called “Creationists” are sometimes a bit of an embarrassment. They espouse a literal view of natural development which, they say, contradicts evolution. Many (though perhaps not all) tend to be evangelical or fundamental Christians who want to read the Bible literally. Thus, they have to propound a version of natural history that flies in the face of the fossil and geological record.
That said, it is important to recognize the down side of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. While it may operate satisfactorily as an explanatory system, it is completely unacceptable as a basis of a moral or “civilizational” system. If we move from saying that “survival of the fittest is how things happen” to “survival of the fittest is how things should happen” then we may potentially lose our essential humanity.
Nietzche’s superman, Hitler’s superior race, and eugenics are all based upon the elevation of Darwinism from a description to a recipe. Under all of these, the weakest, the less valuable, or more useless are pushed aside. Of course, it is generally the elite who will self-define themselves as the strong, the valuable and useful.
It is at this point that Darwinism comes into conflict with Christianity. Christianity is founded on the protection, not the discarding, of the weak. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me” or “The meek shall inherit the earth” are just two examples in which Christ elevated the weaker and disadvantaged members of humanity.
As a religion Christianity is, by definition, a moral code. Thus, it stands in stark opposition to Darwinism. It is in Darwinism, via Nietzche, that we can find Hitler’s philosophical or moral justification for the extermination of the Jews. It can also provide a foundation justifying genetic manipulation, euthanasia and abortion. When we add in a bit of Sartre’s concept that there are no moral absolutes, the recipe becomes a witches’ brew.
Fundamentalist Christians, in their revolt against the Theory of Evolution, are onto something. They reject the idea of Darwinism as a potential moral or philosophical base for the ordering of civilization and have chosen to manifest their rejection by attacking the factual basis underlying Darwin’s theories.
The Renaissance Man takes a different approach. It is unnecessary to defend the values of Christianity by denying facts. Christianity does not exist in defiance of facts. The Renaissance Man prefers that the facts stand as they are, and that Darwin’s theories, though useful as an explanatory tool, never be elevated to the status of a moral system. This must be vigorously opposed.
In the end, the Renaissance Man is left to conclude that Christianity is more humanistic (and humanitarian) than Darwinism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment