« Micromanaging The Gods
Main
Sick? Maybe Shamash Can Help »
August 23, 2009
Let's All Meet At Ethical Realism
Robert Wright wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times that suggests that infidels and some theists will find a common ground if we focus on moral behavior. Here's a sample,
Since Lewis wrote — and unbeknown to many believers — evolutionary psychologists have developed a plausible account of the moral sense. They say it is in large part natural selection’s way of equipping people to play non-zero-sum games — games that can be win-win if the players cooperate or lose-lose if they don’t.So, for example, feelings of guilt over betraying a friend are with us because during evolution sustaining friendships brought benefits through the non-zero-sum logic of one hand washing the other (“reciprocal altruism”). Friendless people tend not to thrive.
Indeed, this dynamic of reciprocal altruism, as mediated by natural selection, seems to have inclined us toward belief in some fairly abstract principles, notably the idea that good deeds should be rewarded and bad deeds should be punished. This may seem like jarring news for C. S. Lewis fans, who had hoped that God was the one who wrote moral laws into the charter of the universe, after which he directly inserted awareness of them in the human lineage.
I've read quite a bit of Wright lately and in every case I find myself thinking that I hope he is correct (I avoid the pun) and that he has come close to making his case but didn't quite get there. On the one hand, this opinion piece, like much of his work, seems philosophically naive (I should talk). On the other hand, it seems naive about the nature of the cultural wars, even between open-minded theists and open-minded infidels, as those wars are currently structured. I'm not saying that Wright is naive about these things; its his writings (or my readings) that reflect these naiveties. I also think much of his work relies selectively and often uncritically on authority. He uses Pinker, who I happen to like, this way in this current piece. I'm not saying he misrepresents Pinker's views. I'm saying that there are other learned views that go unmentioned, views less supporting of Wright's thesis. If this only happened within the context of a opinion piece with its space constraints it would be understandable. But the same thing often happens in his books. I am thinking particularly of the selective use of biblical scholars in The Evolution of God. And I worry that he sometimes "define(s) the system" so broadly that important distinctions are glossed over to the determent of the realism he seeks to embrace.
All that said, where I agree with him and even more where I disagree with him, Wright never fails to forces me to rethink ideas I hold dear.
If you haven't, read the whole piece and see what you think.
Posted by Duane Smith at August 23, 2009 7:16 PM | Read more on Odds and Ends |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2984
Comments
Wright's piece has been commented on by all the expected sites. Reaction appears overwhelmingly negative, but maybe that just reflects the nature of the blogs I routinely read. The one extended thoughtful discussion I've seen is by Jerry Coyne at whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com
which, from my point of view, says just what needs to be said.
Posted by: Dan Milton at August 24, 2009 11:48 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.