Darwin, Morality, and Religion

a sermon by Alan Taylor

delivered Dec 2, 2000 at the Woodinville UU Church

Reading: Judith Walker-Riggs, as quoted by Forrest Church in A Chosen Faith

Long long ago, it seemed so simple. The universe was a three-storied apartment house, with heaven on the top floor, full of gods and stars; earth in the middle, full of people and animals and plans; and hell in the basement, full of terrible and scary things. God had nothing else to do but sit up there watching us. We were the center of attention. We were his people.

Then came Copernicus. He said that the sun did not move around the earth at all, but was a fixed star. He said it was the earth and us on it that did the moving, and, worse, that the earth was just one of the planets that so moved, one among many, and not at the center of anything at all. …

In the last few decades we have been entering a new vision of the universe as radical and revolutionary as the Copernican changeover, and we still have not worked out what it all means, either in theology or in our view of what humanity is and what we ought to do with our lives.

Reading: Richard Wright, The Moral Animal

If plain old-fashioned Darwinism has indeed sapped the moral strength of Western civilization, what will happen when the new version fully sinks in? Darwin’s sometimes diffuse speculations about the “social instincts” have given way to theories firmly grounded in logic and fact, the theories of reciprocal altruism and kin selection. And they don’t leave our moral sentiments feeling as celestial as they used to. Sympathy, empathy, compassion, conscience, guilt, remorse, even the very sense of justice, the sense that doers of good deserve reward and doers of bad deserve punishment—all these can now be viewed as vestiges of organic history on a particular planet.

What’s more, we can’t take solace, as Darwin did, in the mistaken belief that things evolved for the greater good—the “good of the group.” Our ethereal intuitions about what’s right and what’s wrong are weapons designed for daily, hand-to-hand combat among individuals.

It isn’t only moral feelings that now fall under suspicion, but all off of moral discourse. By the lights of the new Darwinian paradigm, a moral code is a political compromise. It is molded by competing interest groups, each bringing all its clout to bear.

Sermon:

Seventy five years ago, in 1925, John Scopes was taken to court for teaching evolution in the classroom. William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor, used a fascinating line of inquiry. The gist of his argument: “These are simple people. They work hard. They want to believe something beautiful in life. Why do you want to take that away from them?”

Even today, evolutionary theory still threatens a lot of people, not to mention a school board in Kansas. For human nature is awfully complex if we reflect on how evolution proceeds.

Long long ago, it seemed so simple. According to some, God made the heavens, the earth, and everything on it in seven days. This happened in 4,000 BCE. Every animal was made to fit its environment, and we humans were the most important of all creation. We were at the center of attention. And we knew what was right and what was wrong. And then came Charles Darwin. In 1859, he published the Origin of Species.

Charles Darwin was known to be one of the most respectful, sensitive men in his society. A number of people claimed he was overly sensitive, always refraining from offending anyone, and often anguished about the suffering of others, even when he didn’t know them. He grew up in a Unitarian home and studied to be an Episcopal priest, not so he could be a clergyman, but so that he could study nature, for some priests dedicated themselves to natural theology. He never donned the cloth, for he got a remarkable opportunity—to be the naturalist aboard a ship that would take a five year voyage. By the end of the second of those five years, Darwin saw how evolution works. It was very simple, the theory of natural selection. It is this: if within a species there is variation among individuals in their hereditary traits, and some traits are more conducive to survival and reproduction than others, then those traits will become more widespread within the population. The result is that the species’ aggregate pool of hereditary traits changes. That’s it. Darwin summed up this most influential idea in western thought in ten words: “[M]ultiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” He knew that ‘strongest’ didn’t mean ‘brawniest.’ but rather an organism’s ability to have offspring that could survive, whether that meant having stripes, or an elongated neck, a bigger brain, more perceptive ears, a heartier digestive system, or longer legs.

Darwin’s simple theory reverberated through western society, calling upon people to re-assess religion and morality. Today I want to reflect on some of those reverberations and the implications for who we are as human beings and what is required of us to fulfill the best of our human nature. Not a simple topic, at least not as simple as the theory of natural selection, but the exploring has brought me surprising, difficult insights.

Darwin’s idea was a tremendous boon for atheists and agnostics. The best argument of his time for the existence of God was just blown out of the water. It is called Paley’s argument. If you come across a stone, you need think nothing of it. If you come across a finely crafted watch with all of its intricacies, you know it must have had a creator. It just didn’t materialize out of nothing, but it took time and attention to put it together. Similarly with plants, animals, and humans. All of these are so well put together, with an amazing amount of diversity, that clearly there must be a creator, and so God must exist. Darwin’s theory of natural selection, later supported by the discovery and research of genes and DNA replication, offers a far less mysterious explanation for the development of life. Further, it is far more simple and concise for rational thinkers than invoking an image of an ambiguous god.

As for the morality or values exemplified by nature, the process of natural selection is ruthless. Evolution occurs with the extinction of creatures with less adaptive traits. This harsh reality was scorned by many. For what if people took this paradigm where the weak naturally die off and apply it to human society. Since the creatures that were our shared ancestors with the chimpanzees couldn’t cut it, maybe we shouldn’t worry about those among us who just don’t have the brains or the brawn to survive.

This was not Darwin’s view. He believed that life evolved for the greater good—the “good of the group.” While he conceded that humanity is simply one species among millions that developed enough adaptive traits to survive. He believed that human beings had been shaped by evolution to look out for collective happiness and the greater good. Charles Darwin believed that human morality evolved. In 1882, he said, “As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

Doesn’t this sound rather Unitarian? I want to believe with Darwin that it takes such simple reason and that there is only an artificial barrier that prevents us from being compassionate towards all people the world over, but research done in the field of evolutionary psychology strongly suggests this barrier is far from artificial. Instead it is very real, caused by our instinctual desire to pass on our genes. Therefore we are hardwired to be selfish, self-serving, and self-absorbed.

To transcend the effects of the selfish gene, we need to develop and adhere to our own moral code. This takes self-examination, personal scrutiny, and self-honesty. It is our basic, or should I say base, human nature that prevents us from being sympathetic to people who are different, and it is a part of our human nature that we have the capacity to transcend our self-centeredness.

How common is it to desperately seek status? to be addicted to social esteem in a fairly literal sense? Evolutionary theory claims we are dependent on the neurotransmitters we get from impressing people. And it is just this social affirmation that shapes our sense of how we should behave. Thus the propensity for self-promotion is at the very core of our socialization.

Despite how much we may claim to be self-sufficient or to have a clear conscience of right and wrong, the most clear case of what I’m talking about can be seen in child rearing. People with wealth tend to lavish their children with learning opportunities and play equipment, while other children in our county, state, nation, and world go without adequate food and shelter. It is natural in the evolutionary sense that we will favor our own children far more than others, and that any others we favor usually will be because they are in a circle of ours, either related or living in close proximity. It is contrary to Darwinian theory to help a child you have never met or a child that lives in a different culture than you, and people who do this have transcended the biological signposts that are within.

Some people distort Darwinian theory to support their own perspective on the truth. Have you heard of Social Darwinism? In the eyes of many capitalists, the theory of natural selections serves as a cosmic affirmation that gain through one’s own toil is nature’s way. And so the rich and powerful justify their position by claiming to be strong and smart. John D Rockefeller said that the withering of weak companies in a laissez-farie economy was “the working-out of a law of nature and a law of God.” But there is a flaw with this logic. The offspring of rich and powerful people are much more likely to be rich and powerful than the offspring of those who are not. Indeed, our moral discourse is shaped by those with power to participate in it. Is it any coincidence that Al Gore and George Bush are both sons of famous, influential politicians?

Lets move to the topic of religion. E.O. Wilson, the founder of the field of evolutionary psychology about 30 years ago, argues, “A kind of cultural Darwinism also operates during the competition among sects in the evolution of more advanced religions. Those that gain adherents grow; those that cannot, disappear. Consequently religions are like other human institutions in that they evolve in directions that enhance the welfare of the practitioners... There is a principle in ecology…which states that maximum competition is to be found between those species with identical needs. In a similar manner, the one form of altruism that religions seldom display is tolerance of other religions.” There were many forms of Christianity, the orthodox position we have today is considerably different than what Jesus likely espoused. The same goes for Buddhism and even the platform of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Today we are seeing on a national scale the playing out of the baser parts of human nature, where both sides seek to win at all costs, to profit at all costs. Contemporary Darwinian theory, called evolutionary psychology, claims that we, particularly men, are predisposed to seek to be super-winners, to end up on top, because that behavior is a trait that helped pre-civilized human beings to survive. Now what is most intriguing about this behavior, is that, not only can it subvert the common, but also such behavior inhibits enduring happiness, both for the individual and the collective.

In my perspective, the election in Florida is a statistical tie. Given the margin for error in the procedures, the technology, and misunderstandings at the polls, the will of the people cannot be accurately determined. However, many people fiercely believe the truth of the matter lies on one side or the other. If only Gore had the clarity to refrain from seeking a few more votes and instead emphasized the ambiguity of the situation. Instead, the winner will be whoever has the loudest, most persistent voices. Although the greatest good comes from reasoned discourse respectful of both sides, not from moral absolutists hell-bent on achieving their own ends. The fluidity of moral values exemplified by our politicians demonstrates a greater loyalty to their own ends rather than the collective good. And that is part of human nature.

Each of us has an innate moral sense, and evolutionary biology suggests that it can be as fluid as the behaviors of our politicians. Emotions like greed, are a part of our biological makeup just like lust and xenophobia. We are designed to think that we are the most special person in the world. To come to believe that you are not the center of the universe takes a considerably amount of maturity. To behave as if you are not the most special person in the universe, takes a great deal more maturity. I could give you several examples where my own behavior belies a self-focused worldview, but I will give you just one. When I am behind the driving wheel, I get upset with people who do the same thing I do. I watch myself make it more difficult for people who want to go fast, and I get upset with people for performing some antic which I have been known to do plenty of times before! So an alien watching me would conclude that it’s okay for me to do various things that it is not okay for others to do—there’s something warped with this picture. As the Buddha taught, “The fault of others is easily perceived, but that of one’s self is difficult to perceive.”

Darwinian theory potentially leads to a cynical view of the world, where there are no a priori standards of morality, there is no set foundation for moral discourse, there is no fundamental claims to truth, for truth is ultimately determined by whoever is in power.

In this light, life can appear meaningless and all behavior amoral, especially with the awareness that a part of human nature lures us toward selfish pleasure. Each and everyone of us has the propensity for greed, lust, envy, hatred, jealousy, and prejudice. According to Darwinian theory, these selfish proclivities run deep in us, so deep that we often are unaware how self-serving our behaviors are, nor how useless they are. Robert Wright writes, “Natural selection has a malicious sense of humor; it leads us on with a series of promises and then keeps saying ‘Just kidding.’” The Biblical poet Ecclesiastes says, "All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled." Wright continues,

Remarkably, we go our whole lives without ever really catching on. The advice of the sages-that we refuse to play this game-is nothing less than an incitement to mutiny, to rebel against our creator. Sensual pleasures are the whip natural selection uses to control us, to keep us in the thrall of its warped values system. To cultivate some indifference to them is one plausible route to liberation. While few of us can claim to have traveled far on this route, the proliferation of this scriptural advice suggests it has been followed some distance with some success.

My grandfather, Carroll Carlson, was a man who didn’t fit the mold of Darwinian success. He was a failure in many of his life endeavors. He took over his father’s funeral business that included a furniture business in a small Iowan town, but he had to give up the latter because he was such a nice guy he gave people furniture in exchange for IOUs that never got paid. When he signed up to go into the Navy, he had to leave the very next day for San Francisco. But he never went out to sea; for he never learned how to swim. He was a landlocked sailor who when thrown into a pool, simply sunk to the bottom. For 20 years he worked as an assistant funeral director, never owning his own business. In fact the house he owned, he sold without telling my parents, and every couple of years, he and my grandmother lived in smaller and smaller places, until they moved into a retirement community. There he was hired as the manager, but they took advantage of him such that my grandparents couldn’t get out for even a meal. At retirement age, he then got a job as a safety deposit clerk at Bank of America. Most days, he’d work for an hour before punching in, and then stay two hours after punching out. This was the one success story, for the manager said, “Carlson, you’re working full time, so we’re going to pay you for it.” But by the time he died, he was in debt to credit card companies. Although my grandfather wasn’t a grand success by worldly standards, he was an extraordinary person. He was the grandparent I learned the most from about kindness, patience, how to be present with other people and listen, laugh, and tell stories. If there was someone who taught me about human goodness, it was my grandpa Carlson.

Even though I don’t subscribe to a God that provides the foundation for our morality, I have faith in our capacity to find sustaining joy through the transcendence of our animal instincts. As we become aware that happiness does not come from constant striving for pleasure, constant striving for wealth, or constant striving for status, we can forge our own moral knowing—and that knowing comes from the peace that comes with taking steps to right livelihood. Those steps are best taken in the company of others who share the same dedication to free ourselves for the sake of love.

Seventy-five years ago, at the time of the trial for John Scopes, the Unitarian minister in Louisville, Kentucky, spoke fervently about evolution and morality. Now this minister had been a Baptist, who thought he had the freedom of the pulpit to speak his views on evolution. He was wrong, and so he became a Unitarian. His name was Lon Ray Call. And this minister has a unique relationship to our congregation. His daughter Maggie Kimbrough is a charter member of this church. Listen to what he had to say:

Nobility calls to each person as well as bestiality. Freedom is a spiritual attribute and one is as free to go up as one is to go back. If one listens to “the still small voice called conscience,” one knows what heaven is; if one stifles it, he makes his own hell. Self-sacrificing heroism is one’s badge of distinction, as selfish lust is one’s badge of dishonor. Human nature is not hopelessly depraved; it is simply incomplete.

may our religion be to walk through the door of profound love, so as to live within the wholeness of our human nature. To answer William Jennings Bryan’s plea to John Scopes, why do you want to take something beautiful away from those who believe in an antiquated myth, I respond, as human beings we are called to a profound love, we are called to our nobility as a truly moral animal, there is great beauty and joy that comes with transcending our animal nature, and doing so opens up a door to the brilliant possibilities we have as human beings.

May it be so.

Blessed be. Amen