In Reformed theology there is a poorly titled doctrine known
as “Total Depravity”. It is not
surprising that those outside the discipline might misunderstand this concept as meaning that people are as utterly wicked as they can be and incapable of good acts. This of course is untrue, as even Hitler could have exterminated one more person, or on the other
hand, paid a kind compliment to his maid. Rather the doctrine, number uno in the
“Five Points of Calvinism”, teaches that there is no aspect of life that is
untouched by sin. Not surprisingly this also includes the airy world of academia.
Eric Felten, in the August 27th edition of the
WSJ, tells the story of the Harvard’s Marc Hauser who was “found guilty of
multiple accounts of ‘scientific
misconduct’”. Apparently the
professor who authored the 2006 book
“Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and
Wrong” got narc’d on by his graduate students for falsifying data in the freshly created “science of morality”.
Felten writes, “Mr. Hauser had boldly declared that
through his application of science, not only could morality be stripped of any
religious hocus-pocus, but philosophy would have to step aside as well...”
The trouble is that evolutionary psychology consists mostly
of findings that carry the weight of
Kipling’s “Just So Stories”. Long before
this field even had a name I can remember an endless parade of tall tales from
National Geographic to NPR to school textbooks with explanations how this
behavior or that appearance came to be. Now this conjecture is certainly a
wonderful place for scientific inquiry to begin, but it usually is not
presented as mere speculation, but disguised as fact.
Mr. Felten goes on in his article, “NPR offered an example this
week with a story titled “Teary Eyed Evolution: Crying Serves a Purpose.”
According to NPR, ‘Scientists who study evolution say crying probably conferred
some benefit and did something to advance our species. ‘ What that ‘something’ ‘probably’ is no
one seems to know, but that doesn’t dent the enthusiasm for trendy speculation.
Crying signals empathy, one academic suggested, and as NPR explained ‘Our early
ancestors who were most empathetic probably thrived because it helped them
build strong communities, which in turn gave them protection and support.’ Note
the word ‘probably’ which means the claim is nothing but a guess.”
One refreshing exception to this academic pomposity is
Christopher Ryan, author of “Sex At Dawn”, commenting on his colleagues,
“Often, the fact that their story seems to make sense is the only evidence they
offer. For them, it may be enough, but it isn’t enough if you’re aspiring to be
taken seriously as a science.”
For me, the whole idea of creating a workable and consistent
morality from a Darwinian worldview is laughable. It is impossible to get
around Dostoevsky’s famous quote, “If there is no God, all things are permissible.” If there is no ultimate judge, there
are no ultimate rules.
Science is well-suited to describe what is, but can never explain what ought.
