Peter2 Darwinian Larry Responds...

The leading Darwinian conservative has done me the honor of responding to my previous post, including the excellent comment by Brendan Foht.  According to Larry, the criticism of him for rejecting the idea of eternity of the human species is misguided.

The basis of the objection comes from the philosopher Leo Strauss.  There are two bottomline possibilities: the world is eternal or the world is in some sense personally created. If the world is eternal, it is governed by an endless process of impersonal necessity, and that process is comprehensible to the human mind.  This understanding is that of the "Nature's God" of our Declaration of Independence, who is the same God of the physicists (of, say, Einstein).  Eternity so understood--as in, for example, matter is neither created nor destroyed--is what makes the world the home of the human mind.

The objection to this understanding of nature or the cosmos is that there's no place for individual personal identity, and no place for our real experience that particular beings are born and die.  Individuality or personal significance become illusions.  As Socrates said, philosophy becomes learning how to die or getting over illusions about one's own significance in a basically impersonal, indifferent, and unchangeable world.  So, from the view of this criticism, the world may be the home of the human mind, but whole human persons become alienated, inexplicable leftovers in the "systematic" account of the eternity of nature.

So the idea of the eternity of nature has generated two extreme possibilities in terms of our self-understanding.  The first is existentialism:  We, in our inexplicable freedom, are absurd, but stuck with living with who we know we are.  The other is pantheism:  We should surrender our illusory, misery-filled personalities by being reabsorbed into a whole where everything is indistinguishable and everything is somehow divine.

Against the eternity of nature, believers in Biblical religion have said the world was created by God, and the fundamental fact is willful and loving personal creativity.  I--a particular person--am not eternal.  I didn't exist forever, and, as a natural being, I won't exist forever.  My transcendence of the laws of biological nature is guaranteed by the Creator who made me in his image. When Christians speak of eternal life, they often are quite imprecise.  God himself might be considered eternal insofar as he alone was not created.

Distinctively modern thought tends to replace divine creativity with human creativity and to call what free beings create in the world History.  We free beings are in rebellion against natural indifference to each of our personal beings.  We're about changing nature with ME--with the desire to have more personal significance and a much longer and more secure existence than stingy nature offers each of us--in mind.  Over time, we become more Historical (including Technological) and less natural beings. 

blog comments powered by Disqus

Share This Story

About Rightly Understood

227 Posts since 2010

Rightly Understood is a conservative blog written by Peter Lawler, a professor of government at Berry College, and a former member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics. The name implies that being a true conservative is all about being realistic, seeing things as they are.   We have to be right about who we are as both free and natural beings before we can have genuinely realistic moral and political opinions. Rightly understood, the common sense of ordinary people living morally responsible lives is closer to the truth than the pretensions of intellectuals who vainly exaggerate their liberated detachment from the real world we share in common.

 

Lawler's most recent book, "Modern and American Dignity," is available from ISI Books.

Recent Posts