"Darwinian Conservatism" and Religion
I found a gem of a website the other day, "Darwinian Conservatism." The entire point of the website is to articulate and defend the view that conservatism and morality can be found "naturally" and seen clearly even with a Darwinian lens.
I find the site very provocative as it explicilty opposes what I believe is a central tenet of what it means to be truly moral and to desire the transcendent. I responded to this posting, on Nietzsche, Darwinism and Conservatism.
Here is the most interesting section of the post,
"Religious belief can reinforce our recognition of moral principles such as the golden rule, and that's why, as Darwin indicates, religion is important for moral history as contributing to our moral habituation. But still that morality can stand on its own natural ground even without any specific religious doctrines.
That's why I disagree with those like John Hare, Carson Holloway, and Peter Lawler, who agree with Nietzsche that there is no natural ground for Christian moral principles like the golden rule. (As I have indicated in some recent posts, it was only in his "middle period" that Nietzsche could see how morality could be rooted in evolved human nature without any need for a transcendent moral cosmology.)"
The whole post is interesting to read, but I'll cut to my comment,
"I find your blog very interesting. Your entire thesis that human morality does not require religion is provocative.
However, I must ask, is the morality you speak of- reciprocity and various iterations of the "Golden Rule"- merely utilitarianism in the absence of a transcendent deity?
I confess that I do believe Nietzsche's critique (at least in its practical implication). Further, I think he is the greatest critiquer in the last two centuries. His vision of the "Last Man" is haunting. His vision of the "abyss" and what happens as you stare into it is also haunting.
He sees better than almost anyone what men become without God. Unfortunately for him, his preferred solution of transvaluation of values and "Ubermensch" can't escape the primal need man feels for ethereal transcendence.
I do not believe nature is good enough. At best, it seems to be a complement to morality, not a justification solely on its own terms."
This is a truly intriguing debate and cuts to the heart of whether morality can exist without God. I maintain it cannot. Clearly, there are differing opinions.
I find the site very provocative as it explicilty opposes what I believe is a central tenet of what it means to be truly moral and to desire the transcendent. I responded to this posting, on Nietzsche, Darwinism and Conservatism.
Here is the most interesting section of the post,
"Religious belief can reinforce our recognition of moral principles such as the golden rule, and that's why, as Darwin indicates, religion is important for moral history as contributing to our moral habituation. But still that morality can stand on its own natural ground even without any specific religious doctrines.
That's why I disagree with those like John Hare, Carson Holloway, and Peter Lawler, who agree with Nietzsche that there is no natural ground for Christian moral principles like the golden rule. (As I have indicated in some recent posts, it was only in his "middle period" that Nietzsche could see how morality could be rooted in evolved human nature without any need for a transcendent moral cosmology.)"
The whole post is interesting to read, but I'll cut to my comment,
"I find your blog very interesting. Your entire thesis that human morality does not require religion is provocative.
However, I must ask, is the morality you speak of- reciprocity and various iterations of the "Golden Rule"- merely utilitarianism in the absence of a transcendent deity?
I confess that I do believe Nietzsche's critique (at least in its practical implication). Further, I think he is the greatest critiquer in the last two centuries. His vision of the "Last Man" is haunting. His vision of the "abyss" and what happens as you stare into it is also haunting.
He sees better than almost anyone what men become without God. Unfortunately for him, his preferred solution of transvaluation of values and "Ubermensch" can't escape the primal need man feels for ethereal transcendence.
I do not believe nature is good enough. At best, it seems to be a complement to morality, not a justification solely on its own terms."
This is a truly intriguing debate and cuts to the heart of whether morality can exist without God. I maintain it cannot. Clearly, there are differing opinions.
Posted by Greg R Lawson at 8/19/2009 8:05 PM 
Categories: Philosophy Conservatism
Tags: Philosophy Conservatism
Categories: Philosophy Conservatism
Tags: Philosophy Conservatism
Greg: I find this topic fascinating, as well. If you're interested, I've written a pair of essays showing the logical chain from Darwin to Nietzsche to today's amoral liberalism. You can find them here: http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-darwin-to-nietzsche-to-hitler.html
Reply to this
Hi, I am from Australia. I came across your blog via Immanent Frame.
Please check out this set of essays which give a radical critique of what is usually called religion
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx
Plus the same author on politics & culture.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html
http://www.dabase.org/not2.htm
Reply to this