 |
Ruse to the Rescue
Back in 2006, I was working with my coeditor Chad Meister on the completion of the first edition of The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion. One world-class, Oxford-trained philosopher and professor in a noted U.S. university—I won’t mention his name, but it is a big name indeed—had agreed to write an entry on “Sociobiology” for our volume. Having his contribution was something of a coup for us. As editors, Chad and I had the plan to check in with our allotted contributors at one year, six months, three months, and then one month before the submission deadline to keep everything on track. Finally at the one-month mark, I tried to contact this world-class philosopher. It was summer and through the help of his graduate assistant, I was able to contact him by phone (he was in France). I reminded him that his essay was due very soon. He blithely replied, “Oh, I thought I already worked on that and sent it to you. Sorry, I can’t help you.”
For some perspective, this was a large project—a reference book with a prominent British publisher involving notable contributors across the religious spectrum. This is the kind of a scenario an editor dreads. How to find a recognized contributor to agree to write an article…within a month! One possibility came to mind—the agnostic philosopher of science Michael Ruse, with whom I had had a conversation about ten years earlier. He was the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University as well as Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada). I called him and told him of the one-month deadline. He immediately and enthusiastically agreed. And he delivered a fine essay on sociobiology from a naturalistic perspective. I have told this rescue story many times and with much gratitude for Michael’s participation in this project.
Ruse and the Three-Views Book
Fast-forward to 2020. Worldview Bulletin’s managing editor Chris Reese and I had been coeditors of the Dictionary of Christianity and Science (Zondervan, 2017)—along with Tremper Longman III and Michael Strauss. Chris came up with the idea of doing another book on Christianity and science, which would ultimately be published as Three Views on Christianity and Science (Zondervan, 2021). The contributors were Alister McGrath, Bruce Gordon, and Michael Ruse. This was an enjoyable project, and Alister, Bruce, and Michael were a pleasure to work with.
On 6 November 2020 (before the book was yet published), Michael emailed all of us participants in this three-views project. He expressed hearty thanks for the opportunity to participate in the book:
Charles Darwin, in his Autobiography, says that he writes for his fellow professionals—or, rather, it is his fellow professionals whose esteem he most desires—I have always felt exactly the same way—when I set out, fifty-five years ago, I wanted very much to publish— perhaps more than anything to win the approval of my (already long-dead) mother—but also very much to be able to enter the world of scholarship as an equal—I didn’t necessarily want to be Number One—although I’ll take it if it is on offer! —but did want to be recognized by the men and women, whom I so much admired, as one worthy to join the dialogue
I think, immodestly perhaps, I have succeeded—now at 80 I have just retired—obviously, even I am going to have to come to an end at some point—I just want to say that as I start to make my exit, my heart bursts with pride at having been asked to be a contributor to our forthcoming book—not just because you are fellow professionals whom I respect, but because you are so obviously on tracks different from mine—I have things to say to people outside my paradigm, as one might say.
So thank you all—it’s not quite up to the level of having grandchildren, but it is very much in the same category.
Ruse’s Autobiography
A few months later (5 February 2021), Michael Ruse emailed us all once again. He briefly recounted his own story, and he reflected on philosopher Antony Flew’s change of mind from atheism to belief in God, but a deistic kind.
I was never surprised that Flew came around—his atheism always struck me as a little bit too forced—truly, I thought then as I think now, that a lot of it was Oedipal issues with his father, who was a very eminent theologian—no real wrestling with what it means to be either a believer or a non-believer.
When I lost my faith around the age of twenty—it just vanished— [a] Saul on the road to Damascus experience in reverse—although actually I am a bit Oedipal like Flew—having had one headmaster in this life, I am damned (probably literally) if I want another in the next life—I thought that by 70 I would be back onside—can’t afford to make mistakes at that age— but to my surprise, I am now a decade on from 80 and never have I had a thought that I might return to the faith of my childhood—if anything the reverse—but remember I am not an atheist, especially not of the Richard Dawkins kind.
I am an agnostic, although I don’t much like that word because it usually means that—like my wife—you are simply not interested in the whole religion business—I am obsessed—but in a kind of mystical way—with J B S Haldane I say that not only is the world queerer than we think it is, it is queerer than we could think it is.
In a way, I really have returned to the faith of my childhood, Quakerism—they are much into mysticism and apophatic theology, as am I—I will say that I am a Kierkegaardian—I have no time for natural theology and indeed think it undermines faith as a leap into the absurd—the fine-tuning argument strikes me as an insult to God—if the only way He can persuade us of His existence is through a handful of chemical constants, then He truly has a grubby little mind—at least go with King David— “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” —I describe myself as a very Protestant non-believer.
In this note, he also expressed how his favorite chapter in the Bible was 1 Corinthians 13, but Ruse insisted on reading it in the King James Version for maximal aesthetic and literary impact.
Odds and Ends
Michael Ruse and I engaged in a couple of informal dialogues on the faith-science question in the spring of 2021. One of these was the Atheist and Christian Book Club. (I can’t recall the other one.) On both occasions, Michael had his glass of red wine by his side as we conversed. In one of our conversations, Ruse spoke about the problem of evil and Nazism, condemning Heinrich Himmler and praising Nazi-resister Sophie Scholl, who would be executed by the Nazis. Ruse said that we don’t need to bring God into the picture to know that what the Nazis did was wrong. Of course, this is a bit odd for someone who claims that morality is a corporate illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.[1] But I challenged Michael by telling him that he was actually borrowing from a Christian worldview. He assumed the reality of evil, which is a departure from the way things ought to be, but why think things ought to be a certain way? On naturalism, things just are. And he also believed in the dignity of human beings, but this sounds a lot like the image of God rather than naturalism. And Ruse seemed to believe the world had a moral framework, which is very readily grounded in a personal God—and a departure from morality as a corporate illusion.
In my view, Michael didn’t seem to be concerned about such points of inconsistency. I remember writing to Michael Peterson, a Christian philosopher at Asbury, who coauthored a terrific debate book with Ruse, Science, Evolution, and Religion (Oxford University Press, 2016). As I read their book, I found Peterson’s theistic view to be consistent and well-grounded while Ruse made lots of assertions that were tenuous and lacked coherence. That is just my assessment; read the book for yourself and see whether this rings true. Peterson himself told me that he simply kept hammering away at Ruse’s inconsistencies and hoped that readers would pick up on this.
After one of the discussions I had with Ruse, he wrote to me on 2 April 2021.
I enjoyed the interaction too—I did run out of steam a bit towards the end—two hours until 10.00pm is a bit draining on an 80 year old! I am really not much of an atheist—more an inquirer—I certainly don’t think of my position as a cop out as Francis Collins suggests.
I do find it suggestive that, at this stage of my life, I do seem to be writing a lot on the religion question—but, as I say in the attached, this is really an extension of the Quaker perspective that has shaped my whole life
It would be good sometime to have a cup of tea or whatever this side of the rainbow bridge.
Take care.
Michael
I am sorry I never had a chance to have that cup of tea with Ruse on this side of the rainbow bridge—but even more so that we will not share that cup of tea in the new heavens and new earth. Sadly, Ruse closed the door to God. Writing about the afterlife, he said, “What I dread is that God might give me what I need rather than what I want.”[2] May our earnest prayer be that God would give us what we truly need—both now and in the life to come. “The world with its desires is passing away, but the one who does the will of God remains forever” (1 John 2:17).
Notes
[1]Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Religion and the Natural Sciences, ed. J. E. Huchingson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace, 1993), 310–11. For discussion on this, see Matthew H. Nitecki and Doris V. Nitecki, Evolutionary Ethics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 8.
[2] Michael Ruse and Michael Peterson, Science, Evolution, and Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 22.
— Paul Copan is the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University. Learn more about Paul and his work at paulcopan.com.
Image: Michael Ruse
