RE: Social Evolution

[Don Perrett]
A couple of posts on this topic state that one cannot find morality in
natural processes. For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. Life is give and take. With the exception of a black hole, name
something in the natural world that consumes without giving back something.
If a person only takes and does not give back then one is a black hole where
all matter is destroyed (theoritically). In which is only death. So the
moral of the universe is to give into the cycle of life and only take in
that which you need to sustain yourself. This is what one will see in
nature. Lest we become parasites.

Don P

 -----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 18:40
To: mrb22667@kansas.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 Thu Jan 26 00:36:56 2006