Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

>
>
>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
>
Speaking of word choice, I think the word 'Morality' could be suffering
the same dispersion of definition that the word 'God' has at times.
Steven Weinberg noted that if the term 'God' is to be any use it ought
to refer to an interested/involved and personal creator, not to some
vague or pantheistic notion. In that same vein of thought, if 'morality'
comes to be seen as an evolved set of behaviors with no more
authoritative impetus behind it than natural explanation, then it seems
to me it has ceased dwelling under that label and has become mere
'expediency' towards some collection of naturally driven ends -- chief
among them: survival. I propose that 'morality' will be a useful term
only because it is claimed to be something other than mere expediency --
and will operate independently of it and even contrary to it according
to the terms of a different [higher] authority.

--merv
Received on Sat May 6 07:47:38 2006