Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

*As to the argument that morality is an evolutionary outcome, I find it
quite a compelling position.*

Pim, do you accept these three propositions: (1) human free will is real,
not merely illusory; (2) there is a moral law that exists outside human /
natural experience; (3) there is a transcendent God whose character and
decrees form the basis of the moral law?

It seems to me that a thoroughgoing evolutionary ethic denies all three of
of these propositions (with the possible allowance of some degree of human
free will). It further seems to me that any sort of orthodox Christian
ethic cannot deny these three propositions (with of course some possible
glosses and nuances on all three depending on whether one is Calvinsit or
Arminian, etc.). Therefore, I don't see how anyone who claims any sort of
orthodox Christian ethic can accept a throughgoing evolutionary ethic. I do
see that the claim "we are predisposed to certain ways of ethical behavior
and thought because of evolution" can be consistent with a Christian ethic,
but I don't think that rather weak claim about predispositions is what
evolutionary ethicists generally have in mind.

*And it does little to address the issue of the existence of a God.
**http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/* <http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/>

Thanks for this interesting link. Though I suppose the "cybernetic" view of
ethics referred to in the link doesn't rule out the existence of a god of
some sort, the "ethical" system described seems to me deeply incongruous
with any sort of orthodox Christian understanding of God as well as of
ethics and human nature. It further seems empirically ludicrous.

The "cybernetic" view presented is that "ethical" behavior simply reflects
environmental feedback concerning behaviours that lead to human peace and
prosperity. We are, as it were, simply Skinnerian creatures whose purported
"ethical" acts are simply conditioned responses. This leaves zero room for
genuine free will or moral responsibility, and zero room for a transcendent
God who builds the moral law into creation based on His eternal character.
In this sense, I think this sort of "cybernetic" ethics does in fact
address, and rule out, the existence of the Christian God.

Aside from that huge philsophical / theological problem, the notion that
ethical ideals such as peace, justice, self-sacrifice, love, etc. are only
conditioned responses based on positive feedback for such behaviors flies in
the face of natural history as well as human history. Yes, I know, under
some game theoretic circumstances altruistic behavior can represent the
equillibruim choice. But let's face it -- nature is fundamentally red in
tooth and claw. Altruism is unusual, not any sort of governing norm.

Moreover, human history is equally red in tooth and claw. If anything, the
death toll from war and totalitarian genocide over the past century
demonstrates that human nature is conditioned against peace, justice,
self-sacrifice, love, etc. And we all know this in our own heart of hearts,
don't we? The Apostle Paul was right -- we are each corrupt at the core,
and our hopes for peace, justice and love come ultimately from the God who
is peace, justice and love, not from our evoultionary history.

On 10/31/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's remarkable how much inroad atheists are making. Seems to me that the
evangelical right may have demoralized some of its followers?
>
>
> This also may help me understand why creationists like Dembski are
spending so much time fascinating over Dawkins.
> It may be a form of religious doubt or insecurity...
> As to the argument that morality is an evolutionary outcome, I find it
quite a compelling position.
>
>
> And it does little to address the issue of the existence of a God.
> http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/
>
>
> A review of the book by Katz can be found here:
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/levy.html
>
>
> Quote mining alert:
>
>
> <quote>On the face of it, and as Darwin himself seems to have noticed,
evolution appears to be incompatible with morality. Natural selection
inevitably favors organisms which behave in self-serving manners, for it
will be these organisms who leave the most descendants. In contrast,
altruistic organisms, animals (for instance) which behave in ways which
benefit others at some cost to themselves, will leave fewer offspring.
Eventually, we might expect, such altruism will go extinct.</quote>
>
>
> Rather than rejecting evolutionary origins, we as Christians should
embrace what science is revealing to us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Janice Matchett wrote:
>
> Referencing NY Times article. ~ Janice
>
>
> October 31, 2006
> Religion Not Source of 'Moral Codes'
> http://tinyurl.com/ymk5jd
>
>
> One comment [hot link]:
>
> 11 You might want to check out the current issue of WIRED magazine. The
cover article is about "The New Atheists" who emphatically and
enthusiastically* reject any connection with any type of religious ideas.
Not sure how the two groups will get along as I haven't really digested
either article completely yet. ... Of course none of them would consider
reading Romans 1:18 and following. *Just remembered that the root of
"enthusiasm" means "in God" (as in ecstatically entranced).
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 31 20:49:36 2006