Re: [asa] Random and design

On the contrary. You asked the link between reciprocal altruism and
Christian scriptures. I complied. I am not sure why you are objecting
to this concept since it hardly undermines divine justice. It merely
explains how our morality is an outcome of a process set in motion by
God.

What is wrong with a naturalistic basis anyway? Is not nature created
by God?

I am not sure about "inventing my own version of reciprocal
altruism". Would it be possible to present some arguments? For
instance, you asked about the link between reciprocal altruism and
the Scriptures and I complied.
Would it not be magnificent if His Word finds support in the
sciences? Or is the naturalistic component too much to handle? In
which case I would like to know why?

Let's assume for the moment that reciprocal altruism arose via
evolutionary processes (as the evidence seems to suggest). What would
that mean?

Robert Trivers is a professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences
at Rutgers University.
His TEACHING INTERESTS include "Social evolution, natural selection
and social theory, evolution of selfish genetic elements ". Trivers
is famous for a series of papers he wrote in the 70's that "<url
href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/03/27/
the_evolutionary_revolutionary?pg=full">transformed evolutionary
biology</url>"

<quote>His ideas, however, seemed to do just fine without him. In the
1970s, Trivers published five immensely influential papers that
braided genetics into behavioral biology, using a gene's-eye view of
evolution to explain behaviors from bird warning calls to cuckoldry
to sibling rivalry to revenge. According to David Haig, a Harvard
professor of biology and a leading genetic theorist, each paper
virtually founded a research field. ''Most of my career has been
based on exploring the implications of one of them,'' says Haig. ''I
don't know of any comparable set of papers.''</quote>

Trivers work was based on the work done by Hamilton

<quote.Trivers's work grew out of an insight made by the Oxford
biologist William D. Hamilton, who died in 2000. In a 1964 paper,
Hamilton proposed an elegant solution to a problem that had rankled
evolutionary theorists for some time. In a battle of the fittest, why
did organisms occasionally do things that benefited others at a cost
to themselves? The answer, Hamilton wrote, emerged when one took
evolution down to the level of the gene. Individuals were merely
vessels for genes, which survived from generation to generation, and
it made no difference to the gene which organism it survived in.</quote>

Hope this helps. Also try to google for Trivers, lot's of good papers
both by Trivers as well as based on the work by Hamilton and Trivers.

On Nov 26, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:

> "Reciprocal Altruism: Love thy Neighbor"
>
> Are you kidding me?!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
>
> Please don't label something as 'Golden Rule' which actually serves
> to undermine that very rule by replacing divine justice and meaning
> with a naturalistic basis.
>
> If Pim wants to invent his own version of 'reciprocal altruism,'
> then that's another thing altogether. But who is Robert Trivers?
> (Scientific proof of 'love thy neighbour'?)
>
> Arago
>
>
> p.s. Nothing has been suggested by me about either abandoning
> science or rejecting God's creation.
>
>
> Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My position seeks a link between what God is telling us through the
> Scriptures and what God is teaching us through His Creation. If
> evolution is how God created then why should we ignore its impact
> on these issues of morality and ethics.
>
> Reciprocal Altruism: Love thy Neighbor, "Do unto others as you
> would have them do unto you."
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
>
> The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental
> moral principle found in virtually all major religions and
> cultures, which simply means "treat others as you would like to be
> treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern
> concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious
> figures have stated it in different ways:
>
> * "Love your neighbor as yourself." — Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE)
> in the Torah, Leviticus 19:18
> * "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." —
> Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)
> * "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel
> (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)
> * "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus
> (ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels, Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27 (affirming
> of Moses)— Matthew 7:12
> * "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." — Muhammad (c. 571
> – 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon.
>
>
> Do I expect the worst? Perhaps you can explain. As far as Janice is
> concerned, her 'contributions' do not seem to support your
> interpretation. I expect the best and am prepared to deal with the
> worst.
>
> Why are you suggesting that one should abandon science to find a
> 'new view of love and trust'? Or why are you suggesting that such a
> love and trust is even possible when rejecting God's Creation?
>
> Just a thought
>
> On Nov 26, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:
>
>> Your position priviledges the evolutionary view of morality and
>> ethics. For example, where does the term 'reciprocal altruism'
>> come from? Is such a view consistent with responsible Christian
>> theology or is it a forced negotiation with naturalistic thought?
>> The irony, of course, is that 'expect the worst' is exemplary of
>> Pim's logic and not Janice's, the latter who seems to tend towards
>> 'hope for the best'.
>>
>> If you were to un-hitch your views of Christianity from absolute
>> allegiance to evolutionary logic, Pim, a new view of love and
>> trust and divine justice may become possible. Why trust Trivers?
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Arago
>>
>>
>> Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> How does my position show a misunderstanding? It has nothing to do
>> with deserving our love, it has all to do with a position of trust
>> towards one's neighbors, irregardless of whether or not the neighbor
>> deserves it.
>>
>> Love they neighbor seems at odds with hope for the best, expect
>> the worst.
>>
>> The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new
>> Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>
> Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada
> Messenger with Voice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 26 20:50:59 2006