Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

In a previous post I had written:  
WD:
> ?I don't think TEs are saying that the Decalogue (ten commandments) is necessarily explainable by science and in particular evolution.? ? Wayne
>

GA:
> This is a fine example. Here then is my question: how did the Decalogue ?come into existence? if not by (an) evolution(ary process)? What do TE?s and EC?s use to describe the ?origins? of the Decalogue, if they don?t appeal to evolutionary linguistics and process philosophy/theology? Can we fairly say that the Decalogue didn?t ?evolve? into existence?
>

I should be a bit more clear on that statement, since obviously,
many scholars talk about how many things in the Decalogue are
similar to Sumarian texts of the same time, and there is Hammurabi's
code of ethics etc., which long preceded the ten commandments.

Theology textbooks often discuss this.  I don't recall the word
they use, but, being a scientist working in biology, I seem to
recall writing that word into the margins of one of the books
I studied on the OT.

It's not too hard to imagine a scientist
calling it "evolution of the ancient Sumarian laws". Moreover,
I can imagine someone introducing a "selective advantage"  for some
model system and then modeling it and showing that it gradually
"evolves" into a Decalogue or something of the sort.

Actually, what I was referring to is more fundamental: the naturalistic
falacy.  That was why I pointed out that crows can make a living
"robbing" other birds.  Even in human society, I have heard that
Sparta did not consider theft wrong, only getting caught.  The
source was a Discovery channel program, so you can take that for
what its worth.  Likewise, it is not considered particularly
wrong to commit suicide in China or Japan when one finds himself
in a difficult situation.  

So the rules of the scripture, and in particular, the rules as
Jesus taught us, are not even necesarily "right" by world standards.
For the most part, the reasons to be moral are based on cause and
effect, but there are many exceptions.  Following scripture is
therefore adding revelation to its proclaimed authority.  Of course,
people don't believe this last point would probably say it just
evolved, but there your are.  Following Jesus is not easy, and
it is true that the world can be against you for doing so.

>  If not, it seems to me that theology, let alone science, will be stuck in a post-modern-like quagmire of indecision and culpability for both the pros and cons of process-oriented ideologies. Even morality and ethics would fall under the realm of evolutionary universalism, and the Bible could be said to have evolved into existence (!). Is this what Ted proposes? Probably not, and I am simply misreading the consequences of his position.
>  

Perhaps you are right that we should spend more time contemplating
our choice of words in these fields.

By Grace and Mercy we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Sat May 6 00:41:57 2006