A Series of Conversations with Professor Michael Ruse; Session Two: Sociobiology, Ethics, and Free Will

A Series of Conversations with Professor Michael Ruse

Session Two: Sociobiology, Ethics, and Free Will

In the Name of God, the Exalted

Interview with Mr. Michael Ruse , Philosopher of Science and Biology

Interviewer: Masoumeh Shahgordi, Writer and Translator

Date of Interview: July 27, 2020

Please share your views and criticisms regarding Wilson's sociobiology.

First, let me say that I am very honored and happy that we are doing this interview. And more importantly, I especially congratulate you because with this work, you are showing that individuals from different countries, different genders, and different religions can have common ground and shared human concerns. And I say this not just from a personal dimension, but this directly relates to the first question I want to answer.

The first question concerns sociobiology. And I will start with Professor Edward O. Wilson from Harvard, who in 1975 published an important book called Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. And this is a book that examines evolution and the theory of evolution, not just in the physical dimension, but in the "behavioral" dimension. That is, what we "do" rather than "what we are." He is a specialist in entomology, and specifically ants. So Wilson spent most of his career actually studying ants and their behavior, and this is a very interesting study, because ants have a complex system of responsibilities: males, females who are workers, and the queen, and all of these things. And Wilson is very interested in these topics. Then he extended his interest from merely ants to mammals, primates, monkeys and chimpanzees, and ultimately to humans, and argued that to understand human beings, we must see them as animals, animals that have evolved through the Darwinian process of evolution by natural selection. And this is what he argued, and to understand what I just said, he argued for the most important thing in human beings. That we are social beings, we are not isolated, living alone by ourselves. And just doing our own things. Rather, we are always interacting with family, children, friends. We go to the store and socialize with the shopkeeper. And all these things. And that is why I say you and I are a perfect example of interaction. Why, online, would you, a lady in Iran, and I, a man in Florida, want to talk to each other? Because we are human beings, we are not like a tree that is isolated and has no interest in others. We want to interact.

Well, this was Wilson's position, and it was very interesting to me. However, he said something that was very controversial. He did not want to talk at all about the existence of differences between Black people and white people. And in fact, he was very careful not to commit such an act. But he did want to argue that, for example, there are certain differences between men and women and their behaviors. And this is not just related to culture. For instance, look at yourself and me. We have culture. I have nothing on my head. But you do, because you are a lady in Iran. Well, this is something related to culture. And I don't think this is related to biology, and that, for example, if you took it off, your hair would stand on end. My hair is like that, but that is another matter.

So, Wilson says women are more inclined towards nurturing, mothering, and caring for others, whereas men prefer to be seen, to go here and there, and things of that sort.

Wilson wanted to say that there are important differences between women and men. You have two children, a daughter and a son. I'm sure when they were a little older you said, yes, they are "different." Girls are not going to be girls because of the "way they are raised." Girls are girls and boys are boys. This is what we are. Wilson wanted to say that you have social structures. And it is not just by chance that some people are leaders and others are followers. It is not just upbringing; it also depends on our innate abilities. Well, as you can imagine, many people found these ideas very offensive; especially in America, feminists, and also Marxists. And interestingly, Jews particularly disliked it. Now, why were Jews so upset about this? Because of the Nazis in Germany. That the Nazis in Germany considered Jews different; as a kind of evil. And thus there was a very (let's say) ideological belief, especially among American Jews, to say no, surely there are no inherent differences between men and women, and not just between men and women and between young and old, but between Jews and non-Jews or anything like that, and that these are more cultural than biological.

Well, this was very controversial. Then I myself, as a committed Darwinian, felt that what Wilson was saying was very, very important. I felt that what Wilson was saying about modern humans was very wise. Because I say that what is very important for reaching an understanding of ourselves is that we are modified monkeys, or if you like, let me put it this way: we evolved from apes. So I was very drawn to that idea. Although (and I think this relates to your next question) that did not mean I accepted everything Wilson said. And I think this also relates to your second question. And especially when we come to ethics or ethical theory, I think Wilson was wrong. I must say that my view has changed a little now compared to then. I still think Wilson was wrong, but I think I was wrong too. In this way, Wilson said that to understand how we behave, and not just how we behave, but how we behave "morally," for example, if you see a child crying across the street, your first action will be to go there, pick up the child, and look for its parents, look for its mother. Are you lost? What can I do to help? Why do you do this? This is not your child. Rather, it is because you feel you should do this; because you feel this is morally good, fair, and so on. And I think the same way. So now, why do we have this feeling? Wilson said it is entirely related to evolution. At that time, I said no. I think that ethics is something separate from this matter.

I am not a Christian. I do not believe in it. But I felt that morality is something like mathematics, as if written in eternity. I thought at the time that that was wrong. But now my view is that Wilson was right when he said that morality is part of humanity's evolutionary existence, although while Wilson thinks that because morality has merely evolved with us, I would like to say no, we have morality but I do not think... Look, Wilson says that because morality evolved, it is therefore necessarily "good." And I say no. Not necessarily. Because there are aspects of our evolution that I do not think are good. For example, our feeling of disgust. Or let us say, for instance, that men have always looked at women as sexual objects. I understand why this is so. Because men who were like this had more children than men who were not, but this does not mean that this is morally good; that we should always behave this way. So I want to return to Wilson and say that Wilson was right that morality is a function of our biology, but I want to say that it is more complex and it is not so simple that because it evolved with us it is necessarily good. And I think this is where my current view basically stands. I want to say that Wilson and I have been very good friends and have respected each other's views. So please know that this difference in our perspectives is not like the religious quarrels between Protestants and Catholics. It is not the hostility between Anglicans or Muslims and things like that. What Franklin Graham says about Muslims is disgusting. I want to emphasize that Wilson and I are very good friends, we disagree with each other's views, but disagreement does not mean hatred or disrespect. And of course, I want to say that this itself is a moral thing. I want to say that Franklin Graham says that Islam is an evil religion, and I say this is wrong. I am not a Muslim. I do not believe in their Prophet. But that is another matter. And at the same time, I respect it. Exactly like the thing you have on your head. I might say, oh, she is doing that to make herself look more beautiful, but that is really not the case. And if you want to do that, I say it is your right and I respect you for doing it.

Now on the other hand, if you were doing a foolish thing, let us say, for example, based on the conditions of women, if you insist that your daughter undergo female circumcision, I say that it does not matter to me what your religion is, but I think what you are doing is wrong and should not be done. Please understand my point. I am not saying that because the culture is different, it is therefore right. But I strongly feel that we must interact. And as I said, this, in my view, is part of our evolution that we are social beings. And an important part of "being human" is that we are social beings who respect each other and work together.

Professor, if you agree, let us leave the next questions for later sessions. Because these sessions are new for me as well, and I prefer to leave a little gap so we can gradually see how to do this better.

No, you are doing very well. And it is very important that someone who has never made a mistake is someone who has never done anything. No. I am a teacher, and the first thing I tell my students is, show me the man or woman who has never made any mistake, and I will show you someone who has never done anything. And I have great respect for the work you are doing. I hope that the viewers, instead of finding fault and criticizing you and saying, oh, this lady is not handling this very well, will say, "I respect this lady who is trying to step out of herself and do this. I could not do this, but she could. It is very good that a lady is trying to step out of herself and do this. We could not do such a thing, but she could." And this is something that I can say I consider exactly part of being a human being. And I think this subject is also very Darwinian. There is an interesting point I want to make about this.

When Christ went to the foot of the mountain (which is called the Sermon on the Mount) to deliver his moral teachings to the people, he said you must love people and you must care for them. And you must visit the sick. You must visit the prisoners. My father was a Christian. And once a week he would go to the local prison and talk to the prisoners and give them cigarettes and talk to them about football. Because he thought this is what Christ wanted him to do. But Christ also said even to those who do not help themselves. And I, as a Darwinian and as an evolutionist, think that was a mistake. I think we should help people who are not bullies, and not impudent, not people like Donald Trump who do their own thing, but I admire those who are ready to make an effort to go one step further. And as a teacher I feel that strongly and also as a father. I always tell my children that my love is for you. My respect is for you. And you know what I mean. You must be ready to go out and use what you gain to go a little further and be a little better, and that is why I say I am very happy to do this joint work with you because I have great respect for you and I am sure that all Iranians who watch this program will feel exactly the same, and I say that I am very proud to be part of a culture that nurtures such women, and also your wife who hears everything I say.

Second question: It is about Darwinian evolution. What existed and what happened?

The second question is about evolution and how evolution came about? You want to draw a distinction between the "facts" of evolution and its "process." The fact of evolution is this (the professor shows his hand coming forward from the wrist and branching out into fingers) like the tree of life. The hands here and then the fingers here. So you find fish, reptiles, and then birds, and then mammals. So the fact is the answer to this question: "What happened?" But at the same time, you have the processes; that is, "What brought it about." "Why did this happen?"

Medicine is a good example. If you are a doctor and someone comes in and says I am sick, the first thing you want to know is how are they sick? For example, you ask them, do you have a cough? Do you have a headache? Do you have a hearing problem? Do you have a stomachache? So these are the "facts." Then you look for the causes. Like, why are you coughing? Is it because of something you ate? Or do you have a specific problem? Why do you have a headache? You are a Muslim and never drink alcohol. But if you did drink, then for instance, if I have a student who complains of a severe headache, I ask them, did you drink a lot last night? A lot of wine, a lot of beer. So you realize these are different: the fact: headache; and the reason: because I drank non-stop all night. Well, it is the same with evolution. You first find the facts; the tree of life. Then the reasons. Why did it happen? Perhaps the best-known and most famous model is the model known as Lamarckism. The theory of the French biologist of the early nineteenth century, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck. Lamarck said things change because we work with them, we change them, and then we pass them on to the next person. Well, consider a blacksmith. Someone who makes horseshoes and works with metals and makes metal things. He develops powerful arms because he is engaged in doing this every day. He is not like me. I am a professor and have weak arms, as my wife always says.

Lamarck said that a blacksmith's children are born with powerful arms, and ever more powerful arms. Like you. Lamarck says this lady thinks a lot, and works with her brain, so her brain becomes larger and larger, so her children will be even more intelligent than their mother because you use it. But this is not actually true. Darwin came with a different explanation. Darwin's theory says no; there is always competition among living beings. Because more living beings are always born and reproduce than can survive. And we know this; the population explosion. Look at birds. They have six or seven chicks but two or three of them survive. Why? Because some of them are eaten, get sick, or are caught in a storm and die. Why do some succeed and some become losers? Why do some have five or ten children? Why do you, for example, have ten children and your friend has none? Because you are more intelligent, more beautiful, and so on. It is really true. Compared to her, you bestow more smiles upon men and have more children than her. Darwin says this is why 'change' occurs, not because you have passed on things like the brain example, but if you have features, particular traits that make you better in the struggle, then it is those features that are passed on. Like a farmer. If a farmer wants fatter pigs. Sorry, I will change my example, you do not eat pork. If a farmer wants to breed sheep with better wool, he must select sheep with really better wool. And breed them and eliminate and cull the other sheep. So you are constantly selecting. You are picking out, the things you want. And over a few short generations, what you will get 'naturally' will be sheep with better skin, better fur, and better wool. Well, this is what Darwin says. Not because God does it. God could have done it, but it was not that God said, well, I want to change everything right now. When you had a child, God said boom and your child became different, or let's say faster or smarter or something like that because God performed a miracle. Darwin says no, no, no. It was because you had such features that made you more attractive and more likely to have children; compared to someone who does not have these features. And understanding this is very simple. If you have two people, one who is very sociable and likes to go out and mingle with others and so on. And another person who says, no, I don't want to have anything to do with anyone. I don't like people. That sociable person is more likely to have children than someone who is unsociable and constantly says no. In this way, the next generation will probably be more sociable individuals. And this is what is in change and it was exactly what I said at the very beginning of the session. Humans are very social animals and want to connect with one another. And if Darwin were here, he would say I expected that.

The particular trait that makes humans successful is not being big and strong; compared to, say, a tiger, we are very weak. Compared to an elephant, we have no power. Compared to a bird, we cannot fly. So what do humans have that has made them so powerful? It is that they are social and work together. And by working with one another, they accomplish more than by working alone. And working with one another means interacting together, marrying one another, and having children. And those who work together, who socialize, are more likely to succeed. And those who say, no, I don't want to, I have nothing to do with girls. Or if, when you grew up, you said, no, I have nothing to do with boys. Boys are not attractive to me. The fact that you have two children is not by chance. Rather, it is because you are social. You go out. You meet men. You meet boys. You met your spouse. You fell in love. And it wasn't just that you had a child and he left. He stayed. He helped you. In raising the children. And all of these things. You were social. If, for example, you were a person who said, no, I don't like to have anything to do with anyone, you would be less likely to succeed. Well, so this was the Darwinian theory which he called "natural selection."

Professor, since you made a bit of a joke, I want to ask you something in the meantime that relates to our discussion. What is your opinion about young people these days saying they don't want to get married, and they are running away from it?

I haven't said anything funny today. (Laughter) I have been a teacher for fifty years and I know one of the things necessary for a teacher is to be serious, but it is also necessary to be funny sometimes. We are having a very important discussion now and talking about very important things. But it's not that we should be self-important and say we are going to talk about very important things. Like a priest. This is very serious. Don't laugh. Because it's an important matter. I am an important person. No. It's not like that. That doesn't mean you won't learn anything. It doesn't mean you can't have an important discussion. You will get much better results if you can reach and interact with others.

What I want to say after that is that, from Darwin's perspective, there was no miracle in this matter. We will talk about God later. But let us say that Darwin presented a scientific theory. He did not propose a theory to say God does not exist. He did not propose a theory to say Christianity is wrong, or Islam. These were not subjects of Darwin's consideration. He was not much into these discussions. But Darwin presented a scientific theory about how we evolved and how all organisms and plants, including humans, came into being, and he wanted to show that this event could come about solely through laws and solely through processes. That you do not need a theory about God to explain why you have a headache. You do not need Christianity to say, for example, you had a headache because you did such and such a thing and it was not a good thing. But that is another subject. When you talk about your headache, you talk about physiology, and about neurons and things like that. And similarly, when Darwin talked about how we came into being through natural selection, what we say in English: a completely natural process, there was no need for God to be involved in these discussions. So it does not mean a denial of God. Quite simply, it is not part of the subject we are discussing. For example, if you were an athlete and I were your coach, we would talk about something else. About what food you should eat, or running a long distance, whether, for instance, it is better to eat two heavy meals a day or not. These are not wrong, but they are not what we want to talk about now. We are talking about something else. And I want to emphasize that Darwin is not saying such a thing. He is not saying this is something that refutes God. He is not talking about the subject of God. He is talking about us and how we evolved.

And now one final point. Of course even today, and especially today, there are those who are uneasy and worry whether Darwin's theory is correct or not. And of course theories do not remain static and as they are. They are developed. They evolve. For example, those who discovered molecular biology and showed how the molecule works and improved a new dimension for our understanding of what is happening. And this is of course something Wilson drew heavily upon in his book Sociobiology. He said we now have a better understanding of social behaviors than Darwin had: a thousand years of study of living organisms (something Darwin did not have at his disposal). So I too can add something to this theory that goes beyond Darwin. Not in the sense that Darwin was wrong, but the theory expands. So as I said, this is how science works.

Thank you. Now let's move on to the next question. About free will and volition in humans.

I cannot prevent religion from entering this discussion. This topic brings up the issue of religion. Free will is, at best, a very difficult subject. Free will means that we can do what we want. We have the choice to do it. For example, you can choose. Your interest is in philosophy and Darwinism. You are free. You might have been interested in cooking, for instance, or something like that. You might say, I don't care about evolution or an Englishman or anything like that. What I am interested in is how to cook meat or lamb or something similar. So we have the freedom to choose these things. And an important discussion, especially for Christians or any religious person, is what one should and should not do. It is our choice whether to do those things or not. Even Buddhists, who do not believe in God in the way that Christianity, Islam, or Judaism does, still believe in human free will. That you can do good deeds or bad deeds. For example, a Buddhist would say Mother Teresa was a good person and Hitler was a bad person. So they still make judgments. And I think many questions that go back to Darwinism concern the extent to which science contradicts free will. Because science implies that humans do not have free will. Because science says that everything proceeds according to laws; fixed laws. So you cannot change it. So, for example, if I knew everything about you and had complete knowledge of you, I could predict everything you will do for the rest of your life. And if you do exactly what I predict because you are compelled to, then do you have free will? Do you have a choice? Darwinism wants to say that what you are is because of your biology. The way you behave or have behaved with your spouse and their behavior with you was not your choice. That you are more likely to have romantic feelings for men than for women is part of your biology. And if men fall in love with women, it is not by their own choice, it is because of their biology. And we have had no choice in this matter. And it also seems that science, or specifically Darwinism, says there is no choice, but religion says, oh, yes, there is a choice. Could you say something bad about the Prophet of Islam in a local mosque? Is that a good deed or a bad deed? It is your choice. If you did such a thing, for example, the police would arrest you and say you did something wrong; because you 'should not' have done it. And more interestingly, if you were sick and could not think properly, the police would say you are not at fault. This person is insane and suffering from a kind of illness and cannot think, so you are not free. So there are many contradictions here between free will and science, and I do not intend to resolve them in this session, but I think the matter is a bit more complicated because certainly (I do not know about Islam) but in Christianity, there is a strong view that says no. Free will does not mean doing such things. Free will means discovering laws, and doing things according to those laws. But nevertheless, free will does not mean being separate from laws. Freedom means not being under oppression. You are free to do the things you want, for example, if someone came in and took your children and said: either you write bad things about the Prophet of Islam in the mosque or I will kill your children. What would you do then? You would say, okay, give me the pen. I will do it. Many Christians say you are not free here. In this type of freedom, there is no choice. Choice means having the 'possibility' to choose. Whether confined by laws or not. In fact, I told you I have kidnapped your children, either I kill them or you must say bad things about the Prophet. Would you say, oh no, don't do that. Because laws say that a mother loves her children. It is not your choice that a mother loves her children, and if I force you to do that, then you are compelled. You have no freedom. So in fact, as I said, there are many tensions surrounding this issue. And now, most importantly, and I realized this is also in your questions, the problems in theology, especially Christian theology, which do not have much to do with Darwinism, the question is whether what we do relates to eternal salvation

or not?

Many Protestants think that not everything we do matters, and the only thing that matters is faith in God. In other words, if you have faith in God, you will be safe, and if you do not have faith, no matter what you do, you will not be safe. Many Catholics, in particular, and certainly many Protestants like the Quakers, in whose culture I grew up, say no, that is not right. Mother Teresa, who was a good person, is more likely to go to heaven than Hitler, because of the things Mother Teresa did, not because of what she believed. If you see someone who says, I don't believe in God at all—consider a virus and a doctor—but I want to spend the next year helping people who have contracted the coronavirus. And perhaps he will die. I say this person is a very good person, in contrast to another person who says, no, I don't want to do anything about this. I want to close the door and just pray to God. I say, very well. But I don't think this person is as good as that atheist who went and helped people. And as I said, I don't really see this as a scientific issue. I think it is more of an engagement with religion. I think we should gradually bring our conversation to an end. I think the main difficulty in the conversation about science and religion is distinguishing which question is a scientific question and which question is a religious question. Do they interact? Or perhaps we really and truly must say, oh yes, there are problems, but they have nothing to do with religion, or if there are problems, they have nothing to do with science. So let us figure that out, and let us work and strive and find the answer. I think we have spent about an hour today, and I want to say that I would like to continue these conversations. I hope we can continue. And address more questions. But I think it will be very useful to have questions and simply focus on them. And you translate them. You see, people learn from their mistakes. We did this yesterday, but it was not as good as today. Today was much better because you and I learned how to do it better. Someone who has never done anything has also never made any mistakes.

.

---

.

Watch this segment on YouTube

The First Session of this Conversation

The Third Session of this Conversation

.

---

.