Re: Social Evolution

*But it seems to me that somewhere in our human 'nature' has been encoded
that law
(or at least the possibility of recognizing it) that leaves us without
excuse
even in the absence of the externally given law.*

This is exactly the point Lewis makes in The Abolition of Man (and
elsewhere). It's classical natural law theory that runs back through
Aquinas, Augustine, etc. (I understand the shortcomings of "natural
theology" of the Paley variety, but that's a different issue.) IMHO,
natural law theory and the moral argument have a scriptural basis and are
among the more compelling aspects of a case for the reasonableness of the
Christian faith. In my view, there are a number of serious problems with a
"divine command" theory of ethics (which suggests that the moral law is what
it is only because God says so). It seems difficult, if not impossible, to
construct an ethic based on any sort of natural law if one wants to be a
consistent Darwinist by extending the implications of evolutionary theory
into the social sphere. But maybe someone here has thought about this
longer and harder than I and has some insights I'm missing?

On 1/24/06, mrb22667@kansas.net <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> Quoting George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>:
>
> > 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
>
> Mennonites are pretty keen on that "evolution" you mention from the O.T.
> unlimited vengeance to the eventual N.T. prohibition of vengeance -- a
> useful
> thing to remember when people try to construct a 'just war' theology from
> the O.T.
>
>
> Regarding Lewis' Tao, he made a pretty good case for the evidence of some
> moral
> law built into creation. The verse comes to my mind in Romans 2:14
> where the
> gentiles do by nature the things required by the law showing that the law
> is
> written on their hearts. Perhaps Lewis refers to that passage -- I can't
> remember. But this is the only thing that keeps me from whole-hearted
> agreement
> with Keith that no moral can be read from nature, but must be read into
> it.
> There may be two meanings of nature in use here confusing the issue for
> me. But
> it seems to me that somewhere in our human 'nature' has been encoded that
> law
> (or at least the possibility of recognizing it) that leaves us without
> excuse
> even in the absence of the externally given law.
>
>
> Altruism is another of those sticky issues in which something important
> seems to
> dissolve the moment you try to inspect it. Even if one was willing to
> cast away
> this entire life for the sake of the eternal Christ (the most noble thing
> we
> Christians can imagine), aren't we still acting in our own
> self-interest? So
> I'm chasing a heavenly carrot instead of an earthly one! Good for me. A
> wise
> old pastor of ours once referred to this as "enlightened
> self-interest". But it
> still seems to be one of those things that begins to stink when you
> ruminate on
> it.
>
>
> Regarding evolutionary explanations for moral development, one can read
> books
> like Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" to get some idea how the Dawkins type
> crowd is
> attacking. As much as I disagreed with his foundational assumptions, it
> was
> there that I was made acquainted with delightfully fascinating things such
> as
> the "prisoner's dilemma" which is a kind of dramatization one can enact in
> classrooms to make a point. I thought, though, that Lewis' Tao concept
> still
> anticipates and answers much of this evolutionary "moral-making" in an
> effective
> way. Thanks for reminding me of this, George.
>
> --merv
>
Received on Tue Jan 24 18:40:59 2006