The sign of the gods

An appendix to my last note that quickly got so long that I figured it could stand as its own post. It deals more with evolutionary science and religion.

It seems tenable to entertain the notion that morality could be "traced back" to the evolutionary mechanism, and in theory at least somehow proven to be a product of natural development. Morality most likely did not just appear in the head of the first human, by miraculous intervention.I don't think even the most conservative Christian would say that (they would say that God wrote it on our hearts from the moment of Creation....what would that look like though, I wonder, if we were to "find" the moral law written on us? Could science ever map out the chemical reactions in our brains that give rise to morality?) Nor is morality necessarily tied to belief in God or gods. Atheists certainly can have a sense of moral imperative, feeling that as rational creatures we are by our very nature required to treat one another with decency and justice. I have seen the claim made that without God, morality makes no sense. This is not true in my opinion. Most sane people feel some sort of inclination to do good. As for why atheists feel they must, it could be said that it's because it's simply the right thing to do. (Christians should seek such altruism--too often I think our motives for doing good are based on ideas of reward and retribution. Rather we should desire what is good because God is good; we should act with love toward our neighbors because we are all humans and that is what it means to be human, not because, at least primarily, we fear the wrath of God.)

We come to a worldview dilemma here. First off, I'm not so sure science will ever pinpoint exactly where in the development of life a "moral fiber" came into play. I rather think the inclination is there from the start, and only comes to fruition with the higher rational life forms. Moreover, religion is not needed for ethical behavior to be important; rather it sheds new light on the mystery. And the mystery is this: why should there be this notion of right and wrong in the first place--especially when in the free-for-all animal kingdom, not looking after your own skin can get you killed? I'm sure atheistic scientists will strive to show how morality is somehow conducive to survival, and was thus part of nature's designs to enhance the lifespan of creatures; or that evolution is intrinsically oriented toward moving beyond mere survival into something deeper. It is my estimation that morality is more useful for enhancing the meaningfulness and beauty of life. From a strictly naturalistic basis, in which the primary goal is, in fact, to survive, value seems somewhat pointless. But if the highest aim is to enjoy existence then it makes perfect sense. And if the purpose of relationships based on morality and trust and honor and self-sacrifice is to enrich the experience, to satisfy some innate craving for intimacy....well, who says that's the purpose? Evolution? Why should that be the case?

If atheists would concede my point that morality and rational relationships are intended for making life more valuable, and that this seems to be what natural selection works toward, rather than simply the endurance of species, where, I wonder, would they place the source of "intention"? They would probably just be content to say that evolution happens to work out that way, it's "set up" for that from initiation. But we would here be allowing evolution a sort of willfulness that I'm not so sure the blind mechanism really warrants. (Of course that's what pure naturalism already does, it holds that evolution is all there is and it alone determines the route it will take...purely by chance.) Besides that I think it should be hard to demonstrate, biologically or psychologically, that this is the chief aim of evolution. Rather, it should take an appeal to some metaphysical factor to show that evolution was designed for such ends. And again, we are faced with the conundrum of why natural selection should so value minds that can appreciate value, why humans as value-cognizant entities have risen to such prominence.

Of course it can be rebutted that humans have survived because of their intellectual prowess; morality and appreciation of beauty are lagniappe, offshoots of cognitive complexity. And it is no real surprise that trust-based relationships contribute to stability within a society. But what if after all science comes to show--and I have no idea what this would look like--that the evolutionary process is served by morality and value-recognition? That these abstracts somehow stimulate the process? What if relationships in which both parties are willing to die for one another are what will carry our species forward? I would think that in the instinct-based animal kingdom, sacrifice isn't to be prized above self-preservation. So if it turns out that sacrificial attitudes actually move the human species further up the evolutionary ladder...I know it sounds like I'm flip-flopping, saying that survival is not the main point, but at the same time it really is. I'm trying to cover all bases and potentialities here. Even if it is found that rational, moral species are better fitted for survival, that does not definitively prove that survival is the be-all and end-all. We could just as easily say that the primary goal of evolution is to produce a species that can enjoy ethical relationships for a long time; the survival of the species would then serve a secondary role to the agencies of morality and rationality--i.e., the particular species is made to last so long so that it can fully develop those agencies. Furthermore, if it is shown that morality and the desire for relationships and the appreciation of beauty are all chance by-products of the mental fine-tuning undergone by hominids to prolong life, and thus that these elements of personhood are not evolutionary necessary (perhaps not even desirable with regard to survival), that yet leaves us with the question of why we should ever feel these urges. Why would natural selection produce in us such strong inclinations if they were largely irrelevant to natural selection's designs? And if we conclude that those inclinations are indeed central to the whole process, we arrive at the fundamental worldview issue of ultimate purpose.

The point, then, is this: here we get down to this issue of purpose, and atheists will attribute all the developments to nature's whim, or nature's nature if you will; theists will go further and attribute all the developments to the will of God. It cannot be stressed enough, science can only say what happens. And if it turns out that natural selection is more disposed to moral, relational creatures than creatures that just kill and hide for the pitiful duration of their existences--in other words, if it can be shown that the "laws" of the universe are so arranged, that it is true that moral strength, aesthetic refinement, and "love" best serve nature's "purposes" and accommodate ideal evolutionary growth, whatever that may be--still that says nothing about why that must be the case in the first place. That does not rule out the possibility that there is a God who prefers, or who is himself disposed to, righteous communion and appreciation of beauty, so that the universe he creates is "geared" toward producing morally responsible, intentionally relational, value-aware creatures. Rather, the fact of nature's preference for such can be seen as pointing away from brute physical processes to an external "force" of personality.

I say that nature prefers this because all the variables in the structure of the universe are in the exact precarious positions necessary for life to thrive on this one solitary world; and the evolutionary drive has in a real sense "ended", or culminated, with us. I made the point earlier about the animal kingdom being based largely on the instinctual drive of kill-or-be-killed. That was mostly just to make a negative point, that maybe mere survival is not an end unto itself. All the stuff about "survival of the fittest" can be seen as preliminary to rational sophistication. The fact that the majority of species operate on this brutal system could be used to uphold the theory that natural selection does indeed work toward survival primarily. It could be countered either that a) this majority is to be expected, because rational agents developed to the degree of sophistication required for morality, aesthetic taste, and self-sacrificing relationships are the result of very precise "tinkerings", so difficult to get just right that it is to be expected that only a few species could ever get close and only one could ever master it, or b) survival only seems to be the most important factor, when in fact all the struggles between creatures to find permanent niches was a set-up for the arrival of a group that could finally settle down and really enjoy life, focusing on the construction of meaningful relationships and taking joy in the grandeur perceived in the universe. If the latter is the case, then we could only know it by "faith", by recognition of the intentional purpose present in creation; and that recognition, that faith-assumption, comes from an encounter with, let's say, the Divine, or at least openness to the possibility of divinity.

It all begins on your starting assumptions. Atheists end at, "This is how the universe works--this what it wants, this is what it aims to achieve"; theists go further and say, "The universe works like that because it is the work of a loving God." If atheists can attribute so much power to the impersonal will of the universe, why can we not suppose that there is something at work in the universe that is personal, and is distinct from the universe itself? And as for morality, we can never come to the point where we can confidently rule out the possibility that our moral understanding is in accordance to some external principle. Indeed, many people for many millennia have felt that the moral law was ingrained into reality by the decree of deity, just as many have believed that there is a reality external and distinctive to our own, a world of spirit. Why would the evolutionary drive foster this odd idea if there were not some measure of actual truth to it? And if it is a fluke, why hasn't it gone away? The faith tradition is a powerful voice, and should be heeded with seriousness.

Yes, our ideas of what is right and what is wrong certainly arise from within us: they stem from an awareness of what makes for relationships and what destroys relationships. We could say that we are "wired" for rational engagement and have at our disposal the means to make it happen. But here we are again at the issue of why evolution should work toward relationality in the first place. The further back we go, the more and more weight evolution has to bear, until we are almost pressed to say it has a mind of its own, unless we are willing to look outside the system. When we look at the fact of rationality, morality, relationship, value, etc., the whole picture begins to look suspiciously rigged--from a certain perspective, of course. One that is open to the idea that there is intentional purpose behind everything. And from the theistic worldview we can confidently say that we have a moral passion because God is holy; and that relationships are desirable because God is relational. So atheists can say that morality is an evolutionary capacity for sustaining relationships, and they can say that relationships are "favored" by evolution, whatever that means. They can say that ethics-based community happens to be what advances the evolutionary drive. And we as believers can affirm, that is true because of who God is, and the universe, in this regard, reflects his essence.

For the record, I don't think the highest aim of all things is to lead a long, happy life, full of good behavior, friends and family, romance, artistic indulgence, hard work, cultivation of the earth, wisdom. These things certainly arise from the advent of rationality and morality, but they are secondary to the real reason any of us is here in the first place. As humans we are called to look beyond the mundane and seek the Creator himself. What joys we experience here should instill in us a deeper love and humility for the goodness of God. They should strengthen our resolve and encourage us to grow closer to our heavenly Father. Our perception of beauty, our understanding of morality, our communion with one another, all serve to remind us of what we are and what we are summoned unto, enrich our appreciation of the handiwork of the Almighty. So the point is not to merely live as long as you can: rather, the ultimate purpose of life is to encounter God in worship and adoration, to receive his love and return it to him by whatever capacity nature has bestowed upon us individually. And whatever science can determine about what the universe is working toward, or what natural selection favors, or what evolution produces, we as the people of faith know that we live to glorify the Creator; and this knowledge does not arrive as a logical conclusion at the end of a long journey of intellectual contemplation or investigation, but arrives when our hearts are laid bare before the mystery and splendor of existence, in the person of the Father himself, coming after us in his longing to be known.