Autopia, or Searching for Spock?

This post is an assigned response to Dr. Paul Louis Metzger’s blog post, Should Ethics Be “Biologicized”? What Might that Mean for Eugenics? which deals with those who see biological studies—rather than philosophy—as the true authority on ethical behavior as well as those who advocate for democratized eugenics. While this is not a normal topic you might see on my blog, it is an important issue to consider. 

Dr. Metzger quotes Harvard University’s Edward O. Wilson as supporting sociobiology, “the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.”[1] So is all of our social behavior, including ethical decisions, the result of our biology? I am open to considering that the answer may not be as obvious as some might think. The psalmist in praising God wrote,

For you formed my inward parts;
    you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
    my soul knows it very well. (Psalm 139:133-14)

Certainly, we are complex and well-designed creatures. As our knowledge of the human body has progressed we have begun to see a mind-boggling level of complexity. In many cases, the complexity of the human body is irreducible which means that the system/organ/structure in question had to be designed and deployed intact and could not have evolved from some less complex state. Structures such as the human appendix once considered vestigial (mostly useless) by evolutionists have now in many cases be found to serve important functions. How much information is contained in our DNA? 

Perhaps you remember one of the original rides in Disney's Tomorrowland was called Autopia (1955). It involved being strapped into a small, smelly, slow, gas-powered car and driving along miniature faux-freeways while being cautioned not to bump into the car in front of you [which was one the few things that made the ride interesting]. Starting in 1965, the cars were all mounted on a rail or concrete center curb that kept you in your lane and reduced collisions. No matter how you turned the wheel you still followed the rail to the end of the ride, in fact, the steering system barely worked at all and at best allowed you to finish the ride more quickly (by reducing friction against the guide rail).

Is it possible that we have some kind of pre-programmed, Autopia-style ethical guide from which we cannot deviate? One passed genetically from our parents and ancestors? Is this guide for our social behavior something that has evolved or was it designed? Is it violable or inviolable? Is it possible that there are biological circuit boards, related to our ethical behavior, that were designed and programmed by a loving Creator? While I don’t want to rule out that possibility, such a record would certainly have been corrupted by the fall (Genesis 3). If micro-evolution (variations within a species) always involves a loss of preexisting genetic material, how would a biologicized ethical system be any different? I cast my vote for the philosophical and theological disciplines being better suited to watch over and determine how ethical our social behavior is than that of evolutionary biology. Yet I might be surprised.

What about those who drive too slow, who impede the pleasure of others? Should they be removed from the ride, or, to borrow a reality-show metaphor, be voted off the island? Who decides? If ethics are pre-programmed then the resulting democratically determined eugenics would be in keeping with such evolutionary-developed ethics. This is frightening.

Dr. Metzger shares this concern, “one of my fears in this democratic country is that we champion a form of utilitarianism, which entails the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people.” Utilitarian ethics, while effective in getting things done, are not kind to those whose existence stands in the way of the comfort and pleasure of the majority and is judged expendable. He cautions that the elderly, prisoners, and other minority communities, would be at risk. This is no minor issue as the masses seem to become increasingly self-focused and unwilling to sacrifice for others.  I totally agree with Metzger’s statement that,

Wilson’s discussion of eugenics in On Human Nature evinces not the prejudice and racism of which he had been accused, but rather a naïveté about the prospect that science will be guided by the essential goodness and rationality of mankind. Not only does Wilson display too much confidence in science’s ability to control human genetics safely, he also believes that adherence to the democratic process will eliminate the potential for abuse.

Scientists and structures of power are not as good as all that. In addition, democratic nations are not immune from racism, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, euthanasia, forced sterilization, and involuntary human testing of new drugs. Large governments also tend to be heavy-handed in suppressing those most immune to their propaganda and most independent from their entitlement programs.

It is the work of a corrupt ethic to demand the sacrifice of another to further one’s own advantage. Rather, it is the work of love to set aside the natural inclination of self-preservation for the benefit of another. I remember the classic goodbye from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, after Mr. Spock entered an area flooded with deadly radiation to save his crewmates at the cost of his own life,

Spock: Do not grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many, outweigh...

Kirk: The needs of the few.

Spock: Or the one...

This logic is certainly utilitarian, but it doesn’t impose the demands of such reasoning upon another. It is a cruciform utilitarianism that lays down one’s own life and rights for those of others—as many others as possible. This is certainly not what would occur through democratic eugenics unless it was in the form of guilt-tripping the minority to “do their duty” to sacrifice for the majority. Such coercion would again reveal an ethical corruption was in play. [Such social pressure to conform also brings to mind Shirley Jackson's 1948 short story, The Lottery, and the 1969 film based on it. The line, "Hesh-up Tessie, be a good sport!" is a scene I haven't forgotten since I first saw it in Elementary School.] 

In the movies, Admiral Kirk learned a lesson through this and subsequent events that led him to risk his "everything" in the sequel for the life of the “new” Spock. Was this biological or something more? Later in explaining why he was willing to lose his ship and even his own son to save Spock, Kirk reversed Spock’s reasoning, “Because, the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.” Yet, even in this reversal, there was no top-down self-serving demand upon another. This is just a scene from a sci-fi movie, not actual history, but I wonder if as a metaphor it might provide a challenge to those of us safely situated in the dominant culture.

What if we began to see the marginalized and devalued as more worthy of being saved than we are of being comfortable? What if the structures of power oppose such advocacy and shared honor? There is more on the line than we think. Kirk, for all his flaws, might have been on to something as we see in his encounter with the grateful Ambassador Sarek (Spock’s father),

Sarek: Kirk, I thank you. What you have done is...

Kirk: What I have done, I had to do.

Sarek: But at what cost? Your ship. Your son.

Kirk: If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul.

Certainly, those immersed in eugenics would fail to recognize that all people (regardless of race, class, education and intelligence, attractiveness, physical capabilities, and overall health) are made in the image of God. If we are not made in the image of God what could we possibly mean when referring to the soul? The psalmist quoted above concluded his song with a request that the Lord, would not allow him to continue in corrupted thinking, social behavior, or ethicizing...

Search me, O God, and know my heart!
    Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
    and lead me in the way everlasting! (Psalm 139:23-24)

Disney's Autopia may be OK for a while, all it takes is putting your foot on the gas and going with the flow, but it is not really driving and gets old in a hurry. It is certainly not the “way everlasting” although the lines to get on the ride may have seemed like it! We need to be in a loving relationship with our Creator-Redeemer for he will not only lead us well, but he will make us new!
  

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Cor. 5:17) 

---

[1] E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 25^th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975/2000), page 4.

Darwin, Dawkins, & the Darkness in my Soul

This post is an assigned response (in a course on Christian Advocacy) to Social Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, and Down syndrome by Paul Louis Metzger 

In his post, Dr. Metzger treads dangerously close to the swamp of misunderstanding by writing semi-favorably about Darwin and Dawkins. He could be misunderstood by those on either side depending on their biases. However, in the process, he makes one very good point. He writes,

Why all this fuss on the need to understand Darwin and Dawkins on their own terms?

Charles Darwin

Generally, conservative Christians do not show much love for Darwin or Dawkins. Still, we need to practice the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) and do to others what we would want them to do to us. We should try and interpret their claims in keeping with their intended aims rather than with how we might wish to interpret them for partisan purposes, just like we would want others to interpret our positions as we intend them. Take for example the accusations and misperceptions of others concerning the early church, where the church’s critics falsely claimed that Christians were engaged in cannibalism and orgies in their love feasts. Such accusations and misunderstandings hurt the church’s witness. Conservative Christians who take seriously the Golden Rule yet who are critical of Social Darwinian thought should be especially careful about not distorting the positions of others, including an atheist like Dawkins. After all, Christians committed to biblical absolutes don’t believe anything goes for the sake of the survival of our particular Christian species.

Do we interpret the claims of those with whom we disagree “in keeping with their intended aims” instead of how they best fit into our talking points? I hope so. Metzger’s appeal to “the Golden Rule” carries more weight than we might want to acknowledge. As with the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, there needs to be equality under this rule. We need to exegete their work within their actual context no more, no less.

While I disagree with many of Darwin and Dawkins’ presuppositions, conditions, and conclusions I see no need to demonize them. We should live by an ethic such as that tweeted recently by Glenn Burris, "Never express hate on behalf of the God of love."
I would do well to consider their stories, to listen to them in their own words, to hear their own stated purposes. In addition, I am thankful for the added understanding of their positions that Dr. Metzger's post supplies… but in the end, Darwin’s theory and available evidence fail to adequately answer questions about the transitions of “life from non-life” and of one species to another (macroevolution). Dawkins’ utilitarian approach to morality is also inadequate in caring for the marginalized and powerless…for whom a utilitarian ethic—no matter its root—will always bring oppression and further powerlessness.

I appreciate my friend Becca McMartin’s comment on the original blog,

While Dawkins' utilitarian standard of happiness sounds good at first, it seems to create more problems than it solves. What is happiness? How is it judged? Who decided? Is it possible to predict the amount of happiness and act preemptively? Is happiness really the point of life? There are no easy answers.

It seems that...

Richard Dawkins

• One man replaces God the Creator with time and chance and hopes for the best. 
• The other replaces God the Judge with his own subjective matrix of happiness and suffering and judges as he feels fit. 

Both academic considerations are tragic and have led to untold suffering through the application of their ideas to policies and processes that have real-world consequences. Yet, to be honest, are we any different? Do we not all too frequently do the same things in our own hearts and lives? Do our closet motivations and classroom ideas come with significant collateral damage for others?

• Do we call God Creator and then treat resources—both environmental and human—as though they were our own possessions?
• Do we speak of a Righteous Judge and a Coming King, yet sacrifice the happiness and increase the suffering of others for the sake of our own comfort and convenience? We are inherently selfish, and apart from a completely hedonistic motive might settle for a utilitarian approach that validates our collective ego and those in power rather than truly valuing everyone. But to set aside our own happiness for that of another is indeed a challenge.

I hope not, but know that too often this is the case. In our hearts, we turn away from God and seek to build a framework to sustain us in our darkness and rebellion instead of abiding in the love of God. Sometimes it is in a macro (very public) way, and other times it is in a micro (private and internal) way. No matter, the darkness is shockingly real. 

Be appalled, O heavens, at this;
    be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord,
for my people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
    the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
    broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:12-14)

Yes, I am thankful for this opportunity to better hear others’ thoughts in their own words. But even more, I am thankful for the opportunity they provide for me to search my heart for where I manifest such fallen thinking and actions…so that I might repent of my hewing and seek God who alone is good to all.

The Lord is gracious and merciful,
    slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The Lord is good to all,
    and his mercy is over all that he has made…

The Lord is righteous in all his ways
    and kind in all his works. (Psalm 14:8-9, 17)

And without faith it is impossible to please him,

                for whoever would draw near to God 

must believe that he exists

              and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)