Naturalistic Fallacy

Michael Ruse from the October 1996 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Second, I am right with Johnson against those who would complain that his syllogism must be worthless, since a science like evolution is only about matters of empirical fact and hence can have nothing to say about God and morality. The truth is that far too many evolutionists today treat their subject like a secular religion, drawing out all sorts of consequences way beyond the empirical. Who has not heard Richard Dawkins, Oxford-based author of The Selfish Gene , for example, telling us that, thanks to Darwin, the "Argument from Design" is stone-cold dead and that now the only intellectually respectable position is that of the atheist?

Where Johnson makes me cross is in his refusal to take seriously, even if only for the purpose of refutation, the arguments of those such as Ernan McMullin--a Catholic priest as well as a professional philosopher of science--who strive to show how science can be stripped of the ideologies that supporters and critics would read into it, and that science as such can be regarded as ethically and religiously neutral, no more supportive of free love than it is of the traditional, two- parent, 2.5-child nuclear family.

Where Johnson makes me even more cross is in the way that he encourages evolutionists in foolish efforts to make even more of a secular religion of their science. Johnson speaks proudly of his friendship and interactions with the historian of biology and ardent evolutionist Will Provine, one of the worst offenders in this respect. For instance, in the January 1993 issue of Biology and Philosophy, Provine advocates teaching creationism in biology classes, so that students might be exposed to the clash between it and the better "faith" (his word) of naturalism. It would be disingenuous of me were I not to admit that I am the editor of Biology and Philosophy. But although you may applaud me on this occasion for letting authorial rights take precedence over editorial qualms, it remains simply silly to bandy about terms like "faith," implying that the scientist in the lab is necessarily on a par with the repentant sinner at a Billy Graham rally--the one drawing on years of training and the accumulated wisdom of the ages, the other driven by rhetoric and other paraphernalia of emotionalism.

Thus far I am merely cross. What makes me truly livid is the way that Johnson flagrantly misrepresents and trivializes philosophy. How can anyone--perhaps other than a lawyer trying to win a case--claim that the morality of liberalism "tends to become progressively more relativistic and even permissive"? In what sense can one claim that today's most influential theorist of liberal thought, John Rawls, preaches a philosophy of permissiveness? Rawls, for instance, would give us freedom to drive cars. But he would at once except the blind. That is not relativism, but the realization that morality is always a question of combining ultimate norms and particular factual circumstances.

Basically, as I have hinted already, the flaw in Johnson's position lies in his slippery notion of naturalism, from which he extracts atheism and all of the wrongs of contemporary society. I will waste no time in trying to refute him, for his treatment of opponents convinces me that this would be a futile task. Rather, I want to go on the offensive, asking what it is that Johnson really wants us to believe.

Johnson admits candidly that these are questions that he prefers his critics not ask. While happy to rubbish the other side, he feels no obligation to offer an alternative. However, we can ignore his modest reticence. Not only because it is in flat contradiction to demands he makes elsewhere that the naturalist answer all questions (else the argument is "a nonstarter"), but because, with an undercurrent of grumblings throughout his book about abortion, homosexuality, and the like, Johnson clearly is pushing an alternative.

Go to the heart of the case. Johnson calls himself a creationist. What does that mean exactly? All Johnson says is that he takes seriously the beginning of St. John's Gospel ("In the beginning was the Word," etc.). That is all very well, but not that informative. Indeed, it is not informative at all. What about Noah's flood? Where does Johnson stand on that, especially on its supposedly universal nature? If he does subscribe to it, then smooth though he may be, he is surely as scientifically crazy as the down-market crew.

If Johnson does not subscribe to the universality of the flood--unambiguously described in Genesis--then he is apparently interpreting the Bible and taking out bits and pieces as it pleases him. There is nothing wrong with this, but we have the right to know which bits and pieces. Is Johnson against pork eating, for instance? Or wearing a wool-linen mixture? Both practices are forbidden in Leviticus. If so, should we take him seriously? And if not, why should we then accept what Leviticus tells us about homosexuality?

The simple fact of the matter is that Johnson's case is as empty as he pretends his opponents' is. He gives us no foundation for moral understanding. If he has one, he conceals it. Up-market creationism proves no more satisfactory than down-market creationism. Neither compels our allegiance. But, apart from the very real threat that such slick products as Reason in the Balance might mislead the uninformed or slow-witted, they do serve as a warning for us all, especially those of us who cherish science as a wonderful achievement of the human spirit.

We who are being attacked should put our own house in order. I am glad that Richard Dawkins is a Darwinian. I have no quarrel with Dawkins if he wants to be an atheist, even though it is not my position. I deny the claim of both Dawkins and Johnson that there is a connection between the two. That kind of link must be broken, whoever is trying to forge it. Science and religion are good neighbors. They are lousy bedmates.