Sir, – Prof William Reville claims that "liberal humanism devalues the role of the family, religion and moral codes" ("Is the liberal agenda based on a delusion?", August 7th). Leaving aside what moral codes the professor is referring to (which seems a rather fluid concept at the best of times), we now live in a country where, thanks to the recent referendum, the family in all shapes, sizes and constitutions is more inclusive and important than ever.
The freedom to practise or not to practise any religious creed is accepted and respected, even if it is not as actively pursued by as many as in the past.
The institutions which the professor claims with such fervency to be the panacea to our natural wickedness are nothing if not strengthened by the continuing advance of civil liberties.
One suspects that the professor may in fact be referring to the reduced role of the (traditional) family, the (Christian) religion and, some unknown moral code when he cries foul over the liberal agenda. – Yours, etc,
CIAN MARTIN,
Milltown,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – While William Reville is often entertaining, his opinion that liberalism or liberal humanism neglects responsibility for others is, at best, very questionable.
Unfortunately, Prof Reville goes further and creates a straw man of “innate, unsullied, human goodness” and then claims that evolutionary science, genetics, anthropology and psychology show this liberal assumption to be wrong.
Setting aside the philosophical question of whether the scientific method could ever demonstrate such a nebulous feature as “goodness”, the claim that “liberals illustrate the inherent goodness of human nature by pointing to simple societies” is to misrepresent more than a century of anthropological research.
If there is anything that anthropology demonstrates, it is the extraordinary variety of the ways that one can be “human”. To further assert that noble actions (presumably altruistic ones) run counter to evolution is to grossly over-simplify (to the point of misrepresenting) the processes of natural selection, especially in a species like ourselves that is so profoundly social in its nature.
On the columnist’s interpretation of the doctrine of “original sin”, we are not qualified to comment, but it is intellectually misguided to claim that modern science can support such metaphysical concepts as the fallen nature of man. – Yours, etc,
Dr A JAMIE SARIS,
Department
of Anthropology;
Prof BERNARD MAHON,
Department of Biology,
Maynooth University,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.