Agnostic.com

8 5

Do you believe in Evolutionary Humanism?

Many atheists subscribe to a philosophy/ideology/religion called "Evolutionary Humanism". German philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon has even written a manifesto for this movement (already translated into English, in case you are interested).

But what many adherents of 'evolutionary humanism' fail to see is that the two elements are mutually incompatible - if taken seriously and at face value.
"Evolution" means:

  • a blind and purposeless process driven by variation plus selection plus reproduction;
  • survival of the fittest ;
  • the absence of morality (to be a predator or parasite is not reprehensible) ;
  • no species is superior to other species (only in the tautological sense that species A spreads at the expense of species B because A has traits that make it "fitter" in a certain environment. In a different environment the roles could be reversed)

"Humanism" - on the contrary - is inherently moral.

  • It is morally good to help human beings, even - or especially! - if they are weak and helpless ; - all humans have an unalienable right to live and to flourish;
  • all humans have an unalienable dignity - from which "human rights" are deduced (nothing comparable exists in nature!);
  • because of their inherent dignity human beings stand out among other animals (if 100 wildebeests die in a flood, that is nature; if 100 humans die in a flood it is a tragedy.)

The conclusion is logically inevitable: Not only Humanism cannot be deduced from evolution: there is no common ground of "evolution" on the one side and "humanism" on the other side; the two have no "interface", just the way an old mechanic typewriter and a computer are incompatible. Both are based on totally different principles.

Therefore, dear Humanists, you cannot have it both ways: you cannot embrace at the same time a naturalistic world-view and believe in human rights or human dignity.
As Yuval Noah Harari rightly pointed out: Humanism, be it in its socialist, liberal of evolutionary variety, is a kind of religion.

Matias 8 May 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It appears that the term is an oxymoron.

0

Although it is rare in nature, altruism is a product of evolution under certain circumstances. The reason we developed the morality and sense of dignity provided key evolutionary benefit for us in social groups. Our ancestors had to deal with both predator and prey significantly larger than themselves, and to counteract that we developed intrinsic social ability and intelligence to be better suited to handle that threat.

Not only are they compatible, but I would argue that humanistic ideas are the product of evolution under the right circumstances. In fact, I will take it a step farther and claim that evolution is compatible with any and all end outcomes, the only difference is the factors leading to that specific evolutionary process. The thing about evolution is that you can not predict the outcome, it will find a local maximization of potential based on statistical variance. If what we call moral values have some definite evolutionary benefit, such as helping the poor and the sick so that they can help you latter, then it stands to reason that a species that relies on other members of its own species would develop those traits.

1

Everything evolves. Ideas as well as everything living. I hate change, for example, but everything changes. I have seen much of this in my lifetime. If you look closely you can see some of this in just a short time. I do not believe that we have "inherent dignity" as there is no proof of this. "Unalienable rights" become so as we evolve along our path and make them so. We do not have a soul nor were we born with a soul. We become the soul.

1

“Man is not merely the latest dominant type produced by evolution, but its sole active agent on earth. His destiny is to be responsible for the whole future of the evolutionary process on this planet. . . This is the gist and core of Evolutionary Humanism, the new organization of ideas and potential action now emerging from the present revolution of thought, and destined, I prophesy with confidence, to become the dominant idea-system of the new phase of psychosocial evolution.” Julian Huxley 1964.

There does seem to be a religious-like fervor there, and a dead certainty that humanism is THE correct philosophy. In that sense humanism is not science—it is a turning away from science.

IMO the scientific approach is to look at nature with detachment and through experimentation and analysis try to understand why things are the way they are. The humanists look at nature and proceed to stamp its attributes with emotion-based values of good and evil.

Humanists want someone to seize control of nature and change it into something more to their liking, but I don’t see anything like that happening. Every social “improvement” seems to bring a bevy of unforeseen negative results. Perhaps no one has the knowledge or insight to create a better world. Maybe nature is capable of proceeding on her own without the meddling of arrogant ignorant humans.

Modern humanists seem to have adopted a shrill opposition to any form of religion. That is itself a religious-like attribute. Dogmatic religions often fight among themselves.

Basically, it seems to me that humanists are not looking at the overall picture. They take up the cause of morality with a religious zeal. But morality is nothing but friendliness, a necessary attribute for life in tribes, villages and cities. They ignore the equally necessary role of competition.

2

If your survival is dependent on collective group effort, then how can you say morality isn't borne of evolution? Why would it be borne at all if not for some evolutionary advantage? The calculus changes if survival depends on group activity and not simply on the individual!

Gmak Level 7 May 14, 2019

@Matias whoops. I misconstrued your question. I wasn't thinking of unalienable rights and unconditional dignity. If this is the humanist stance, it is far too anthropocentric. If this is the humanist stance, evolutionary humanism seems like an oxymoron to me.

0

Humans are a social species, our power is in the numbers, the more people we can keep alive, productive, educated and healthy, the more positive feedback will generate. This is an observation (of course now we are in the brink of superpopulation so it can change). Give this observation we can conclude that rules that will stabilize society, stop violence (at least inside the tribe, nation, alliance etc), improve survival chances by creating a social safety net (charity, benevolence, school, church, hospitals or at the limit a welfarestate) will promote it, and the moral codes represent this, the rules that when followed increase the numbers of a tribe, and make them more efficient than the neighbor tribe.
Understanding that the moral code is derivative from our needs and not an "absolute commandment" is the key. Moral is to allow many people as possible to thrive and do not treat equal people as if they were special, this way we can increase our numbers and extract in average more productivity from ourselves.
And those rules change with time.
Protect women that create the next generation of soldiers that protect the tribe is essential when we are at constant war, a man can generate many babies per day, a woman can generate one per year. But when you end this state of war, you do not need this distinction anymore. So the "moral" change. Bronze age societies where women were not baby factories lost the war because they didn't have big armies after some years. Now societies where women do not contribute with technology development and workforce loose the race because they rely on fewer brains to win the competition.

You can argue about what is right or wrong, but in the end, unless we have a world government that dictates our lives, whatever works will always grow and dominate over what is "moral".

@Matias because only in western state and religion were separated.
This concepts can only be created when the bug army is not on the hands of the religion

0

Not all humans have an inalienable right to live . When judged guilty of murders , the murders may be given a death sentence , and may eventually be be killed . And while they may be punished in this manner , obviously those they killed will not be resurrected , when they die .

2

"Humanism" is the ability, with the knowledge gained from evolution, to rise above the concept of evolution and determine that the gained knowledge of what is best for survival has become greater than raw evolution. Once upon a time, cave men "dragged their women by the hair". In the modern world, we have the intellectuality to decide that there's a better way to manage our affairs with the opposite sex, with respect and cooperation, for the greater good.

godef Level 7 May 14, 2019

Hubris! Evolution is not something you can rise above! Trump is blazing a trail with his hubris, heading us straight toward extinction! Gaia is indifferent to humankind. We'll be gone in a shrug, in a haze of excess CO2.

I think Richard Dawkins explained pretty well why the selfish gene would invest in other members of the tribe. It worked better for the individual who invested because he could reap the reward of assistance in the future. It was better for the tribe because co-operation increased its chance of survival.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:346377
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.