Recently Aaron Kheriarty posted a link to an interview he had in February with by Gad Saad, an “evolutionary psychologist.” The two had an interesting conversation which touched on many of the issues that create so much conflict and dissonance today. As I listened to their conversation I jotted down a few notes, and further reflections brought thoughts I would like to share with you.
The first part of their dialogue addressed politics and control, in particular how our individual liberties have been usurped. When they addressed the rationalizations of the collectivists a thought occurred to me, bringing some of the Harry Potter mythology to mind: ‘For the Greater Good’ as justification for taking away our rights. In the final volume of the Harry Potter saga, they learn that when Dumbledore was young he was very to close to Grindelwald (‘the most powerful dark wizard until the arrival of Voldemort’). The two adolescents had the dream of exerting power to take control, because it would be ‘for the greater good.’ In a future piece I am going to talk about images & ideas in Harry Potter that the author used, but for the moment we see how she wove the collectivist rationalizations into her story. Indeed, you & I were supposed to take the jab ‘for the greater good’, that is, to protect others… except we know it didn’t protect anyone, just Pharma bottom line.
TRUTH
They moved into a discussion of truth, and given the title of my Substack, it isn’t surprising I take issues with some things they said. Of great concern was the discussion about “instrumental” truth, using ‘facts’ towards a specific end. The problem is that they were NOT talking about TRUTH, not as Francis Schaeffer called it “TRUE truth”, but what are in essence, instrumental or pragmatic LIES. Statements made for the effect they can bring about, not because of inherent truth. Such thinking supports a relativistic epistemology which denies objective truth. Let me restate this more simply.
In a previous article:
I discussed the difference between objective & subjective properties and statements. TRUE truth is something objectively true, it does not matter whether you or I believe it or agree about it. What we THINK does not matter to the truthfulness, only the objective facts of the situation. At a traffic accident each person may genuinely believe that he had a green light, yet (assuming someone wasn’t messing around with the controls!) one of them is correct, that is believes CORRECTLY that he had a green light. The other person believes it, but he is wrong. A video of the situation could clarify that.
We have heard “safe and effective” until our ears bleed and we can’t keep a meal down, but the endless repetition or the “sincere” (but incorrect) beliefs of many-most doctors DID NOT MAKE IT TRUE. I am drawing this out because of the background of the host: he is an evolutionary psychologist which is, from my perspective, an oxymoron of a remarkable degree. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that claims random mutations in the genes of an organism sometimes changes an organism (because it is a “beneficial” mutation) so that it has a ‘selective’ advantage in reproduction: this mutation allows this critter to make more babies than its peers, so the mutation becomes more frequent in the population. The theory goes on to claim that eventually so many beneficial mutations occur that the organism gains a spectacular advantage that it branches off & possibly eliminates its relatives.
In theory, this occurs within the DNA, which codes for assembling proteins. What in the world can mutations in DNA have to do with ‘truth’? Alvin Plantinga, a brilliant philosopher, probably the leading analytic philosopher in the world, wrote a paper years ago demonstrating that neo-Darwinian naturalism was ultimately self-defeating (that is, the ideas undermined their own support), and many papers were written ‘back & forth’ on this subject. I have never come across a ‘defeat’ of Dr. Plantinga’s argument. Rational, truth-producing minds simply cannot come from random physical processes without intelligent input. I was a bit surprised that later in the interview, Dr. Saad stated that he believes that evolution did not produce ‘TRUTH’ but was about ‘winning arguments.’
Please help me with this … HOW does one POSSIBLY establish the claim that an accumulation of mutations produced a reproductive advantage because they helped win arguments? Can you see the fantastic leap of faith here, arguing against the old evolutionary argument that random mutations somehow produce brains that could know truth (which I agree didn’t work) but he now claims that these mutations produced the ability to win arguments (to which I also disagree).
Question: WHAT does a changed nucleotide base, leading to a changed amino acid in a protein, have to do with TRUTH? Truth is immaterial, it is not biological. It is not mechanistic. This entire way of conceptualizing the issue shows how far our educational process has been skewed. Those of my generation – yeah, I’m a boomer, get over it – see the utter absurdity of claiming that a man can have a period & a woman can have a prostate. This is NUTS! Yet both of these beliefs are claimed to be true. So whether TRUTH or ‘winning arguments’ is claimed to result from random mutation, it is nonsensical.
This should make us look again at the destruction caused by post-modernism, a forceful claim that all knowledge is relative or subjective. This doesn’t lead to truth, but to the idea that there is no ultimate meaning, not clear definitions, and ambiguity of language. It is not surprising that suicide rates have been climbing among youth for many years. Growing up in such a world, it is quite difficult to find a ‘steady anchor’ in the world. I will be writing more on these ideas in the weeks ahead.
CONSEQUENTIALIST v. DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
When the discussion shifted to these concepts, I got distracted from jotting down a few thoughts, so I am not clear whether or not they actually defined these concepts. Basically it comes down to ethics being based on ‘results’ from acting in accord with those beliefs (consequentialist) or based on the underlying principal, coming from “binding duty” which is the root meaning of deontology. In other words, morality as an objective fact, not pragmatically determined.
An example was given about justifying taking the life of one healthy child, when the organs harvested could save the lives of 5 other children. The consequentialist ethic would claim that the “5 for the price of 1” is a bargain. But clearly we cannot justify such a thing ethically, as was pointed out. A great example was made from the movie ‘The Dark Knight’ where The Joker gave each of two boats a control that would blow up the other boat. The screenwriters did a marvelous job with this. We CANNOT take the lives of others simply to meet our own needs, and they talked about the Nuremberg trials which led to the Nuremberg Code: we as physicians CANNOT forcibly engage people in research. PERIOD.
I guess the DOD controllers of healthcare/’pandemic management’ are exempt, being military … except as I recall, Nuremberg WAS focused on military – in wartime!
PSYCHIATRY
Saad brought up psychiatry & history of various psychoanalytic thought, contrasting Freud & Jung with modern approaches. Kheriarty correctly noted the tremendous contribution of Freud in his development of thought in “the dynamic unconscious.” From his discussion I suspect that Aaron had a modest exposure to these ideas. My training incorporated a strong psychoanalytic influence, and residents were encouraged to enter into twice-weekly psychotherapy. The shift towards behaviorist approaches took man from being a thinking & feeling person, to an animal that simply needed proper behavioral reinforcement to ‘make him behave properly’ which certain fits with the totalitarians! Saad spoke of the antiquated “schizophrenigenic mother” in light of “modern biological psychiatry” and while I would agree that Schizophrenia has strong biological roots (ie brain disease), what I have observed is that the ‘schizophrenigenic mother’ is alive & well. Read up on Borderline Personality Disorder and I think you will find an excellent description for what happens to a child raised in a highly conflicted environment where there is never any solution to problems, where love is inconsistent & unpredictable, and where the needs of the parents are more important than the needs of the child.
CONCLUSIONS
I had mixed feelings about this interview, as there were both positives and negatives. Sometimes it seems that the need to put one’s belief system at the forefront interferes with focused discussion on a topic. Yes, I realize that I have done just that, I have superimposed my own beliefs onto a discussion between two other men. I confess as I read over this, it isn’t ‘coming together’ as I would have liked. I am delighted that there some of these issues are being discussed, as the moral/ethical dimension in all things COVID is referred to but not really examined. Additionally, I am pleased that Dr Kheriarty is bringing his religious views into his work. As he is coming from a Roman Catholic background and I am strongly Reformed in my theology, we differ at significant points but both seek to do more than introduce the word ‘God’ into the discussion.
One specific element of theology that the Reformers emphasized is crucial in looking at where we are and where we may be going. Reformed Theology takes a very strong stance on the fact that man is ‘fallen’ – that is mankind is in rebellion from God. In this view people are not seen as “mostly good but occasionally they screw up” but rather as self-centered beings in constant rebellion from God, and who because of this rebellion & self-centeredness struggle to act in a consistent loving manner towards others. Throughout the history of mankind we see greed for wealth, desire for power, and lack of empathic consideration for others – all of which are the ‘idols’ of man. No, we don’t worship a wooden pole or a golden calf, but look at the insatiable desire for more wealth. I remember some years back when a professional basketball player was demanding to renegotiate his contract worth over $13 million. He said “I have to feed my family”!
Have you ever seen a politician who wanted LESS power? A banker who wanted LESS wealth? A rockstar who wanted LESS adulation? While there may be occasional exceptions, we see how man is in this constant struggle, and that it is a MORAL struggle. It is about what is right & wrong, which far too often conflict with what people desire.
Medical ethics seems to me to be an area that cannot allow compromise. We as physicians take Hippocratic Oath upon graduation, underpinned by the concept that we will do no harm. This has been thrown onto the trash heap. We live in an era where some people seek to allow CHILDREN to have their bodies permanently mutilated without the consent or even knowledge of their parents. And my word “allow” misses the mark. They want to encourage and facilitate these acts.
I believe that such acts are EVIL. Not because I am old. Not because I am ‘out of touch.’ Not because I am ‘transphobic’ (sorry, but I have ZERO fears of men who want to pretend they are women, and vice versa; disgust - sure; pity, absolutely; fear – not a chance!). Such acts are evil because they are a perversion of God’s design of mankind. They are evil because they permanently harm a child. They are evil because they usurp parental authority. These are objectively evil, evil in and of themselves, NOT because I don’t like them.