understood from a biological perspective and need not be as sacred as the theologians once believed. In
fact, Smith's book Man and His Gods nicely illustrates how morality is functional and an epiphenomenon
of culture. It has changed drastically throughout recorded history.
My religion, which is of course as yet undefined and totally unpopular, accepts morality as a set of
prescribed rules that came not from a supernatural being and his mysterious wisdom, but rather came from
a recognition of human behavior. We humans can recognize our own behavior and we can codify it. We
are smart beings who can characterize good and bad behavior and relate it to how it makes us feel (good
or bad).
I don't think anyone feels good after killing someone, even in revenge. I can only empathize in the sense
that once, in grade school, I punched a kid and hurt him bad, and even though he was a bully he cried,
which proved he really wasn't so tough after all-hence, not much of a bully. The fact that our emotions
have evolved this mechanism of conscience lends weight to the belief that our emotions have some social
significance and play an important role in our social interactions.
Very little work has been done on this, but it is perfectly easy to do it. Ask kids how they feel when they
hurt someone, for instance. If it can be demonstrated that conscience is natural-not taught, not learned, but
there from the start-then it is reasonable to treat it as we would treat any biological trait, like hemoglobin,
and it is reasonable to assume that it is an evolutionary adaptation in some way to social life. So, your
difficulty in wrapping your head around my statement in my last note comes from the fact that you were
taught a much different concept of morality than I was. Perhaps we need a different word. I know this:
much more data needs to be collected!
Homer Smith wrote nicely. You will appreciate him, I think. I am enjoying Brideshead Revisited
immensely in my hours of bed rest. I am glad that I bought the miniseries. Thank you for the suggestion. By
the way, Consilience is excellent. However, Wilson won the Pulitzer Prize for a book called On Human
Nature, which is also very important for its theological implications. Catch you later,
Greg
Dear Greg:
I'm bummed that you're still feeling bad. I'll send a prayer up into the indifferent universe for you. I'll add
Wilson's On Human Nature to my order of yesterday.
The human species can change its own nature. What will it choose?E. 0. Wilson, biologist (1978)Just this morning (it's about 7 a.m. now) I was thinking of our exchanges and connecting them
unintentionally-in the weird way the brain does things-with an exchange between Charles and Julia
toward the end of the Brideshead book/ miniseries. It has to do with what should happen at the deathbed
of Julia's father...
I have to run to work.All the best,