Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

You're at the edge of the distinction between morals and mores. The
former are traditionally considered absolute, holding for all persons and
all time. The latter are distinctive to the culture or subculture. With
the advent of a "scientific" view, morals have come to be only the rules
endorsed by the culture, close to the older notion of mores.
Dave

On Sat, 06 May 2006 06:39:39 -0500 Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
writes:
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. &nbsp;Following scripture is
therefore adding revelation to its proclaimed authority. &nbsp;Of course,
people don't believe this last point would probably say it just
evolved, but there your are. &nbsp;Following Jesus is not easy, and
it is true that the world can be against you for doing so.

  
&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;
    

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 17:00:32 2006