Re: Social Evolution

*[Allan] As Keith pointed out today, the only true compass for morality
comes from special revelation, and we should not be reading morality from
nature (including our own perhaps naturally evolved inclinations).*

But the whole idea of a "moral compass" is absurd in true social Darwinism.
Speaking of a "moral compass" within the context of social Darwinism is no
different than speaking of "irreducible complexity" in traditional
biological evolution. You would be accepting some aspects of the theory --
"my evolutionary background leads me to tend towards sexual promiscuity" --
while replacing others with contradictory theological conclusions -- "my
evolutionary background, however, is not determinative of my moral compass
because God has imbued me with His image and Spirit, which allow me to
choose the good at least sometimes in accordance with the special
instructions He has revealed to me." It seems no different to me than
saying "there is some evidence of evolutionary descent within biological
lineages but God broke in at various points and inserted newly and specially
created organisms / systems."

*[George] But along with survival of the fittest ethics there have also
developed altruistic ones. (The illustrations of the "Tao" which C.S. Lewis
gives in the appendix of The Abolition of Man is helpful here.)*

True, but "altruism" as conceived by social Darwinism bears no real
relationship to "agape" as conceived in scripture. "Altruism" in social
Darwinism is at its deepest level selfish behavior, because the "motives"
for the altruistic behavior ultimately are to perpetuate one's own lineage
(or in Dawksins' view the "motives" are for genes to perpetuate
themselves). If anything, "altruism" as conceived by social Darwinism seems
more like the Calvinistic concept of original sin: even that which seems to
be a "good work" is at a deeper level entirely selfish.

And the comparison to Lewis' "Tao" seems misplaced. It's been a while since
I read The Abolition of Man, but if I recall it's essentially a robust
defense of natural law theory. In Lewis' view, the ubiquity of the "Tao"
across history and culture suggests that we have a moral nature that
hearkens to an ultimate source of moral law. This is set against moral
relativism, in which there is no universal moral law, and which is a logical
consequence of true, robust social Darwinism. Lewis' argument is the
classical "moral argument" for the existence of God, which seems to me
directly at odds with social Darwinism.

On 1/24/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> There would be some force in David's argument if a kind of social
Darwinism were the only type of ethic that social evolution had produced &
if we were then trying to impose some different ethic. But along with
survival of the fittest ethics there have also developed altruistic ones.
(The illustrations of the "Tao" which C.S. Lewis gives in the appendix of
The Abolition of Man is helpful here.) & in fact the ethics of the Bible
can be seen to have gone through a kind of evolutionary process. E.g.,
there is a definite development from the demand for unlimited vengeance of
Gen.4:23-24 through the limits placed on rettribution in the lex talionis of
Ex.21:23-24 to the move beyond any retribution in Mt.5:38-39.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: steamdoc@aol.com
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:23 PM
> Subject: Social Evolution
>
>
>
> David O. wrote:
> ---
> Doesn't some of this kind of discussion sort of skirt around the question
of
> social evolution, though? If you accept biological evolution, can you
> reject social evolution, particularly as human behaviors increasingly can
be
> grounded in biochemistry and genetics? I'm not sure that those who seek to

> draw moral principles out of nature do it so much by simple analogy
> anymore. There's an evolutionary logic to it. This is a problem for me as
> I wrestle with the concept of theistic evolution. If you reject social
> evolution based on prior theological beliefs, aren't you doing the same
> thing as those who reject biological evolution based on the same beliefs?
> ---
>
> This sounds like it is touching on the classic "is vs. ought" fallacy.
What do you mean by "reject social evolution"?
>
> It seems likely that there has been some evolutionary impact on human
social behavior, at least if we grant that nature (as opposed to nurture) is
more than zero percent of the picture. And that principles analogous to
Darwin's have operated in the evolution of societies. So, if by "reject
social evolution" you mean denying that this evolution has happened, that
rejection would not seem justified any more than a denial that biological
evolution has happened.
>
> But it seems like what we ought to "reject" on theological grounds is the
idea that the results of social evolution provide any basis for morality.
My evolutionary heritage may (as a recent study suggested) have me
genetically wired to be sexually promiscuous, but that doesn't mean such
behavior would be moral. As Keith pointed out today, the only true compass
for morality comes from special revelation, and we should not be reading
morality from nature (including our own perhaps naturally evolved
inclinations). In fact, it seems that much of our call as Christians is to
obey God's revelation and thereby act contrary to our "natural"
inclinations.
>
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, CO, steamdoc at aol dot com
> "Usual disclaimers here."
Received on Tue Jan 24 15:57:31 2006