RE: Social Evolution

Even Black Holes give back if you read Stephen Hawkings "Brief History of Time".
 
Best,
Charles

 
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
 
 

>>> donperrett@theology-perspectives.net 1/25/2006 11:33 PM >>>

[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 10:51:23 2006