Classic: Is War ever justified? Just War, Darwinism and Christianity | Michael Ruse vs Nigel Biggar.

The episode begins with host Justin Brierley introducing the profound consequences of World War I, highlighting its staggering death toll of over 18 million and the consequent contemplation of whether the losses were justifiable. Against this historical backdrop, Justin opens the discussion on the relevance of 'just war theory'—the criteria under which warfare is deemed necessary and justified. He introduces his guests: Nigel Biggar, a Christian ethics scholar defending the just war theory, and Michael Ruse, an atheist philosopher critiquing that standpoint and exploring the evolution of conflicts through a Darwinian lens.

Nigel Biggar emphasizes that while war is undeniably destructive, it might be justified in the defense of the innocent. He reflects on World War I—considering the moral and political obligations that led Britain to engage in warfare against Germany. According to Nigel, despite the catastrophic costs, decisions made during times of war must be analyzed through the lens of just war theory, which operates under criteria such as just cause and right intention.

Michael Ruse shares his journey as an atheist reflecting on the concepts of war, drawing parallels to Darwinism. He suggests that conflict might be rooted in our evolutionary background but also critiques the notion of inherent pacifism within the Christian tradition. As he elaborates on his latest book, 'The Problem of War', Michael explores how Darwinian perspectives challenge simplistic notions of peace, arguing for a broader, more analytical approach to understanding human conflict.

In the course of their discussion, Michael challenges Nigel's views, particularly critiquing his stance on the justification of mass casualties in conflicts like the Battle of the Somme. Nigel, on the other hand, acknowledges the horrific realities of warfare but insists that there is a justifiable framework within which such decisions are made, citing the necessity of intervention in the face of oppression. They navigate through historical patterns of war, the responsibility of religious leaders in inciting or preventing conflict, and the roles of pacifists, underscoring the moral complexity surrounding wartime decisions.

As the discussion inches towards a conclusion, both scholars agree on the fragility of societal progress. Nigel puts forth the idea that while original sin implies an inclination towards conflict, Christian theology introduces a redemptive hope tempered by realism. Michael offers a more skeptical view, advocating for human agency and effort in mitigating war. The conversation wraps up with reflections on the paradoxical nature of both theological and Darwinian approaches to understanding warfare.