Re: Fwd: [asa] Quoting Darwin out of context

Merv,

You'll have to remind me of the exact details of the prisoner's dilemma.

However, as I recall the dilemma is resolved by an altruistic action - but
this would only be for a short term gain - and not a long term plan.

Iain

On 8/14/06, mrb22667@kansas.net <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> Have any of you ever heard of the "Prisoner's dilemma"? The
> Dawkins/Dennett
> crowd have sometimes brought it up as an illustration of how "altruism" or
> cooperation might evolve. It's a great classroom exercise to help
> students
> think about concepts like trust or altruism.
>
> --merv
>
> Quoting Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>:
>
>
> >
> > *In fact his view is quite moral - our brains have evolved to an extent
> that
> > > we have become intelligent enough to realise what is going on, so we
> can
> > > oppose it, and choose not to be the puppets of our selfish genes. *
> > >
> > > It's "moral" in the sense that he lacks the intellectual honesty to do
> > > what his views require, which is to abandon any concept of "morality."
> > The
> > > reality is that his insistence that we can transcend our selfish genes
> is
> > > utterly incoherent if his beliefs are otherwise true. If Dawkins is
> > > basically right, we might *think* we've become so smart and self-aware
> > > that we can transcend our selfish genes, but that would be just
> another
> > > self-delusion, another games our genes are playing with us to ensure
> their
> > > survival. Any other belief is just soft-minded wish-fullfillment
> > > religiosity. Our delusions of morality are, as Wayne said, nothing
> more
> > > than power games. Mao was right: morality begins at the point of a
> gun.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm not quite getting you here, David. Can you explain just why an
> > atheist/materialist view requires you to abandon any concept of
> morality?
> >
> > One could argue plausibly, I think, that the evolution of intelligence
> had
> > the unexpected side-effect that humankind gained a moral sense. This
> wasn't
> > "planned" by evolution (though of course as Christians we would say it
> was
> > planned by God, e.g. the bit in Romans Ch 2 where it says that even for
> > gentiles the requirements of the law are already written on their
> hearts).
> > But for a moment I want to consider whether Dawkins's views require of
> > necessity (as you claim) to abandon any sense of morality. I don't
> think
> > so. It may well be the case that being moral is more likely to ensure
> our
> > survival as a species, but I'm not sure you can argue that this is just
> a
> > game your genes are playing, and I don't think Dawkins does. I think
> the
> > distinction between gene-games and proposing moral behavour for survival
> of
> > the species is that gene-games involve no long term planning - an
> evolving
> > system simply searches for the first adaptation to ensure better
> survival in
> > a changing environment. However, proposing wholesale rebellion against
> what
> > our genes are doing - looking after the poor and weak, for example is a
> long
> > term plan because by our intelligence, we have had a vision of a better
> > society in the future. It's true that Dawkins has also argued that
> altruism
> > can be explained in evolutionary terms, but I think that this is perhaps
> > only when there is a long-term pay-off.
> >
> > So I think Dawkins is at least consistent, and I don't believe it's
> right to
> > accuse him of intellectual dishonesty, or being deluded that he's moral.
> > Where he's totally missed the point is that 2000 years ago Jesus
> Christ's
> > life and death on the cross to save sinners was the ultimate
> > counter-evolutionary step - a long term plan to save humankind, and show
> us
> > how we ought to live.
> >
> > Iain
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.