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

This is ironic, relying on an anti-communist historian to describe
communism and arguing that a man without vices would be 'paradise on
earth'. Is that what paradise is all about? Or are we now conflating
two very different concepts?

I see the 'numerical values of fundamental constants' as a necessary
requirement for life, whether or not they arose by chance, evolved by
a regularity process or where 'designed' is something that is a
philosophical notion.

Evolution can surely not say anything much about philosophical
concepts although it can help understand how we approach such concepts.

Reconciliation of science and faith need not be vacuous, it is just
not covering all the necessary aspects. Big deal.
                

David wrote

PvM: So far I have yet to see why the strong or weak position leads
to any such conclusions

Reciprocal altruism is only one component of human social evolution.
Competition and violence are also part of our evolutionary history.
The observation that reciprocal altruism and violence are each part
of our evolutionary history is simply that, an empirical
observation. It provides no criteria for choosing between these
competing norms. It tells us nothing about why we ought to choose
cooperation over violence. We have to look elsewhere to answer the
"ought" question.

Aha, but now we have to distinguish between innate behavior, which
indeed does include altruism and not violence, at least not to most
people. So the question is: where does violence come from. Simple:
from the implementation of the kinship and love the neighbors rule.
Sounds a bit confusing? Remember that there are in and out-crowd
participants and that both rewards as well as punishment are forms to
reinforce behavior. In other words, while kinship and altruism are
the innate moral rules, the implementation of these rules can involve
violence and in fact competition with outsiders.

Enough for today though, I have to go through the news and figure out
what God's message was with the recent election results. Quite
amazing how the results seem to have come as a major surprise to many
evangelical Christians, especially the outcome of the various state
amendments. From a scientific perspective, it seems that ID
supporters have done relatively poorly and the originator of the
'teach the controversy' policy, Rick Santorum is licking his wounds.

On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

> I suppose your notion of morality is precisely the same as the
> numerical values of fundamental constants in physics, which do no
> represent a remarkable coincidence but is the result of us living
> in a particular universe from all the universes possible in a
> multiverse.
>
>
>
> If by evolution you mean a scientific theory, which deals with the
> physical aspect of Nature, then it can say nothing of nonphysical
> entities like, values, meaning, purpose, etc.
>
>
>
> Your "reconciling scientific findings with religious teachings and
> beliefs," is vacuous since it does not address the fundamental
> issue that experimental science has nothing to do whatsoever with
> particular historical events, say, the birth, death, and
> resurrection of Christ.
>
>
>
> "Certain, pre-Althusserian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Althusserian> interpretations of Marxism have held that human
> nature is completely determined by the socio-economic base <http://
> en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Base_%28Marxism%
> 29&action=edit> . The anti-communist historian Richard Pipes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pipes> describes how this
> interpretation led to a belief in a coming new man without vices,
> in essence a new superior species: albeit one caused by socio-
> economic changes, not genetics. Trotsky thought that this new man
> would be able to control all unconscious processes, including those
> controlling bodily functions like digestion <http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion> , and have the intellect of
> Aristotle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle> ."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism <http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism>
>
>
>
> Man without vices would invariably lead to paradise on Earth.
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wed 11/8/2006 12:27 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong
>
>
>
> What I pointed out is that Christian morality seems to be as
> 'arbitrary' as any other morality as it interprets and applies some
> of the basic rules given to us. What I also point out is that these
> basic rules may exist as an innate moral grammar.
>
> Of course, that the ten commandments can be reduced to the outcome
> of evolutionary processes, is not 'proof' but it make logical sense
> if one accepts that evolution is God's mechanism for Creation of man.
> Of course there is no proof, this is about reconciling scientific
> findings with religious teachings and beliefs. So if evolution is a
> God given process and if evolution led His Creation to 'learn' the
> basic rules of morality, as outlined in the Bible, then who am I to
> argue?
>
> Does Marx promise 'paradise on earth'? How does the Marxist concept
> of this 'paradise' compare to a Christian notion? Now I agree that
> communism and religion share some hopes especially when it comes to
> social justice, but I fail to see, and this is where you may be able
> to help, how communism relates to paradise on earth.
>
>
> Is paradise the right word to describe the communist concept ?
>
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>
>> I personally have never attacked communism by the actions of
>> Stalinists.
>> I have attacked communism/Marxism because it is contrary to the
>> nature
>> of human beings as exemplified by the foolish Marxist notion of the
>> New
>> Man---paradise on earth, which even Christ does not promise.
>>
>> You argue that "much of the Ten Commandments can be reduced to the
>> outcome of simple evolutionary processes," but that does not
>> constitute
>> a proof. Mere words prove nothing. I assume that the Ten Commandments
>> are God given. What is your assumption?
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:52 AM
>> To: Alexanian, Moorad
>> Cc: David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong
>>
>> I do not defend the actions of those who call themselves communist,
>> what do their actions have to do with communism anyway.
>>
>> kill...,murder... it's very much the same thing. although some may
>> have (re)interpreted the commandment to allow the killing in self
>> defense, death penalties and war, one cannot escape the notion that
>> these concepts have been shaped to meet the needs of societies.
>>
>> I argue that much of the ten commandments can be reduced to the
>> outcome of simple evolutionary processes, whether or not this means
>> that they are 'man made' is a matter of philosophy.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>>
>>> Some actually read, "Thou shall not kill" actually as "Thou shall
>>> not
>>> murder." Are you implying that laws like the Ten Commandments are
>>> man-made? I do not defend the actions of people that call themselves
>>> Christians. What do their actions have to do with Christ anyway?
>>>
>>> Moorad
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:58 PM
>>> To: Alexanian, Moorad
>>> Cc: David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think there is a fundamental difference between laws like "Speed
>>>> Limit 60 mph" and "Thou should not steal." Surely, Communists and
>>>> Nazis have their "moral" laws that are arbitrary and certainly do
>>>> not apply to them. That is a typical feature of man-made laws,
>>>> whereas true moral laws are two-edged swords that cut both ways.
>>>
>>> What other laws other than man made laws do there exist? Natural law
>>> does not even necessarily take the form of absolutes. For instance
>>> 'thou shall not kill' still allows for self defense, warfare etc.
>>> The
>>> communists and Nazis have moral laws that in many way are not
>>> different from the Christian laws that led to the demise of
>>> millions.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 8 23:46:56 2006