Evolution and Burke's Conservatism

Using Russell Kirk's interpretation of Edmund Burke, where do I stand with Burke's conservatism?

I do stand among the opposition to much of the modern world, but certainly not all of the modern world. The history Burke wrote about, the revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, and so on, is best explained now by modern science, specifically the science of sociobiology.

As to “change” Burke might be very skeptical of the philosophical naturalism of evolution, and would probably define me among the “sophisters and calculators.” I'm afraid Raymond Cattell, one of my mentors, who was from England originally, would be thought of as a magician with wild incantations trying to regenerate society.

I share Burke's dismay at our nation dissolving into a mere aggregation of hedonistic individuals, and his skepticism about big business and bourgeois supremacy, contrary to what is thought about Burke and the business world. Burke thought we should conserve more than covet. Burke wanted to preserve tradition, classes, the “orders.” He believed that property is related to freedom, and economic leveling is not economic progress. We are morally equal but real inequality is natural and can never be removed, not by communism, not even by love. Men have equal rights, but not to equal things.

I also affirm Burke's belief in a divine intent ruling society, but I define divinity quite different from Burke. The “eternal chain” linking us to the past and future is evolution, along with the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood that activates life, which is then shaped by evolution. Each state is a clause, a contract in the eternal evolution of life connecting the past to future Godhood, which we can evolve to as our divine destiny. I agree that history is an unfolding design, with cycles only coming within the unfolding design, which defines evolution (Burke called it Providence).

Stereotypes are generally correct, based in indwelling bio-social traits, and useful in making quick decisions, which Burke called “prejudice, as long as we know that important people and things can fall through the cracks; genius can turn up literally anywhere.

I agree with Burke that reform and change are not identical and that innovation can be damaging. It was Burke and Kirk who impressed on me the importance of Ordered Evolution, not sudden radical change. This is the touchstone of conservatism for me.

But I also know that blocking evolution can be more damaging than evolution. This rises to the level of religion in defining the Great Spiritual Blockade which has blocked or slowed our evolution toward Godhood. The theological materialism I affirm would be considered theological radicalism by Burke--- philosophical or religious innovations were not Burke's favorite things.

So I can subscribe to most of Burke's declarations, but not all, which is why am a revitalized-conservative.