by Eric Steinhart
I’ve advanced this thesis in some previous posts: every question that used to be answered by appealing to God can be answered better by appealing to some form of evolution.
It’s hard for me to understand why that slogan would be a matter of faith. The fact that some thesis is speculative or metaphysical doesn’t entail that it’s a matter of faith. I affirm the existence of the entire iterative hierarchy of pure sets – the entire system of purely abstract Platonic mathematical objects. I believe that system exists because of arguments based on evidence, such as the Indispensability Argument, as well as a variety of other arguments. Those arguments are not without controversy. They may well be wrong. But surely my belief in the system of mathematical objects is not faith.
The best that any of us can do is to go with the stronger arguments. Those arguments are often inductive and thus highly speculative. Science is speculative. It would be hard to find any theories more speculative than our very best current physical theories. Does that mean that physics is based on faith? Surely not. Science goes with the stronger arguments. And it goes with the stronger arguments even when those arguments lead to contradictions – like the contradictions between quantum mechanics and the relativity theories.
An evolutionary metaphysics, justified by arguments grounded in evidence, is not faith. It’s going with the stronger argument. Of course, it isn’t certain, and it may well be wrong. But that hardly makes it a matter of faith. I’ll stand by my claim: every question that used to be answered by appealing to God can be answered better by appealing to some form of evolution. And I’ll also stand by the claim that at the present time the very strongest arguments are arguments for evolutionary metaphysics.
To be sure, evolutionary metaphysics need not be Darwinian. It need not be some sort of blind random struggle for survival. Evolutionary metaphysics is not a branch of biology. Darwinian evolution is merely one rather local form of evolution. It’s just plain silly to equate all forms of evolution with Darwinism. There are many varieties of evolution. At the deepest levels, evolution might be entirely purposive and progressive.
And why would an evolutionary metaphysics have any trouble at all with an ultimate original object? One can easily run a modal cosmological argument (that is, the Third Way) to the following conclusion: there necessarily exists an ultimate independent utterly simple object from which all other objects evolved. The only problem with the modal cosmological argument is the conclusion that the ultimate object is God. It isn’t. But what is it? Perhaps it’s the empty universe – the mereological zero.
But perhaps the deeper worry is that, even if evolutionary metaphysics is a matter of rigorous abstruse logic for analytic philosophers like me, it will just look like another dumb-ass religion to the average person. Especially to those Crazy Christian Conservatives. And then we atheists will have lost the epistemic high ground. Alas, it’s hard to take that worry seriously.
Culturally, atheism is a way station on the way from one religion to another. Atheism in the West is a sign that Christianity is being replaced by other religions. It isn’t a sign that religion is ending. It’s perfectly fine with me if new religions emerge (or if older Western religions come back to life). Atheism means I don’t believe in the theistic deity, which means that I’m not a Christian theist. It doesn’t mean that I’m not religious or even that I’m not Christian. I often identify as a Christian atheist – that is, as an especially intense type of protest-ant against American Christianity. It is an identity I highly recommend, precisely because its paradoxicality forces people to think.
One of the new religious movements is known as religious naturalism. Perhaps it’s just another earth-centered spirituality. Or, in its more metaphysical forms, it’s a type of religiosity focused on the glory of the cosmos. Most religious naturalists adherents are highly scientific. Many religious naturalists are non-theists. But they are also value the social, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of life. I note that even Dawkins, in the opening chapters of The God Delusion, endorses something like religious naturalism.
Some sort of neo-paganism is probably the religious future of the West. It certainly won’t be Christian, it may not even be theistic. And, someday, the religious belief in personal gods will probably be replaced by other religious beliefs. Maybe the future of American religion is already unfolding at Burning Man. Maybe the future of religion will be centered around playing The Glass Bead Game. Or giving tiny ornate gifts to strangers. Or factoring numbers into their primes. Religious intuitions change. The future of religion is probably as incomprehensible to us as a computer would be to a Medieval peasant. And I’ll be happy if future religion is more ethically and cognitively positive. If it’s indeed true that most people need religion, then I’d prefer that they have some non-theistic religion. I’d prefer that they have a religion in which there is no supreme fascist.
This guy Michael Dowd is an evangelist for evolution. One of the things he does is show kids how to make necklaces with “evolution beads”. If anything surpasses and replaces Christianity, I’ll bet it’ll be something like his evolutionary spirituality. And it’ll probably be non-theistic. Would that be bad? Why? Should atheists oppose it? Why?