Protesting the Abolition of Man
Protesting the Abolition of Man By Bionic Mosquito for Lew Rockwell
Dennis Danielson is an intellectual historian who has written about literature, religion, and the history of science. He studied English Literature at Oxford and Stanford before teaching at the University of Ottawa and at UBC from 1986 to 2017.
His most recent book is entitled The Tao of Right and Wrong, of course invoking C.S. Lewis’ use of the Tao in the Abolition of Man. This book is a rejection of moral nihilism, and a recognition of the life-affirming moral realism founded in the Tao.
I will offer some thoughts on the lecture; as is always the case with videos, I will likely not capture exact statements, but hopefully I stay true to intent.
Danielson has done a form of a re-write of Lewis’s classic work, offering what he calls a case for moral realism. He writes of the trans-cultural or super cultural meanings of right and wrong. By this he means, right and wrongs as recognized across most major cultural traditions around the world. This idea conforms nicely with Lewis’s work – as Lewis identifies in the Appendix of his book. It also is seen in the Golden Rule, versions of which are to be found throughout history and in many traditions.
What is the proposition that we must oppose? Lewis called it subjectivism, others describe it as relativism or even more broadly, naturalism. Danielson cites a book by Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology: The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Danielson notes that this is exactly the kind of thing we must fight against.
Carroll declares that meaning, morality and purpose are not built into the architecture of the universe; they emerge as ways of talking about our human scale environment. Science doesn’t care how we ought to behave, because the source of these values isn’t the outside world; it is inside us. Carroll uses the term “science” as he must: artificially limited to physical science – hence providing the necessary presupposition for “proving” naturalism.
Carroll rejects what he calls “folk ontology” – according to which meaning might be given by God. In its stead, Carroll offers “poetic naturalism,” rejecting all other possibilities and asks us to view meaning in the same way human beings view other concepts that we invent.
When it comes to deep meaning and principles of right and wrong, such philosophical naturalism demands a search for something social, psychological, physical, etc. In other words, it treats moral principles not truly as principles. But principles are things that, by definition, come first.
One is reminded here of C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man:
You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see though’ all things is the same as not to see.
Danielson cites another such book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari. Much of it is quite similar to the arguments presented by Carroll. But one thing of note: per Harari, there is no such thing as a human soul because scientists have examined the human body and found no such thing.
This lack of scientific support is based on premises and presuppositions that guarantee a lack of scientific support; it is not based on evidence and a careful chain of reasoning. Naturalists deny and cannot explain ends or purposes inherent in human beings, yet every single one of us – including physicists and anthropologists – have aims and goals. The very fabric of our lives is teleological – purpose driven. Therefore, a failure to account for the strong sense of purpose driven lives undermines the naturalists.
Why is it that humans carry a different ethical compass than do apes or lions? Much of what occurs as normal behavior in the (non-human) animal kingdom, we look at as sins if done by humans (or just immoral to you atheists). What can explain this? Random atom smashing that benefitted (or cursed, depending on how you look at it) humans? But then why are similar views held among virtually all of humanity? This doesn’t seem random.
Lions and geladas. Danielson notes that there is a lot of infanticide going on in such species, especially when the king is taken down, as his children go with him. Why is it, when we see such behaviors in non-human animals, we don’t think in terms of good or bad and we accept that this is just the way it is? Why do we not accept the same for humans? Clearly the “is” of nature is quite different than the “ought” that humans accept. (Then again, with abortion as acceptable as it is today in the human world…well, never mind.)
Thomas Henry Huxley was known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his advocacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Regarding human origins as coming out of what he called “the cosmic process,” Huxley had some thoughts on this matter. At some point in this evolutionary process, the conscience of man revolted against the moral indifference of nature. Thus, there is a sharp clash between the “is” of nature and the “ought” that we apply to human beings.
Given such a clash, it seems somewhat futile to regard that “ought” as arising from the somewhat empirical “is.” As Huxley observes, cosmic nature is no school of virtue. Huxley notes that evolution alone is incompetent to furnish any adequate reason to offer why what we consider “good” is preferable to what we call “evil.”