This topic seems to belong in another thread. Randy has returned to the original conversation. So this one takes another turn.
Let's not just assume 'reciprocal altruism' or assume that a google of Trivers and Hamilton is enough. The topic runs much deeper than that. A. Comte coined the term 'altruism.' The concept of (and theory behind) 'reciprocal altruism' is much more recent.
"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?" - Pim
Lots behind this Pim. And many on this list might even support the 'morality as a process of unfolding, i.e. evolving' rhetoric, but not I, as a non-evolutionary sociologist. As I wrote initially, in response to your question, "Your position priviledges the evolutionary view of morality and ethics." To me, this is improper (given the current epoch) and unbalanced.
A naturalistic basis is not the same as simply practising/doing natural science. Perhaps we need a philosopher of science to help clairfy the difference(s) between them. One thing wrong with a naturalistic basis (i.e. naturalism as ideology) is that it often is used to oppose a theological basis. But, of course, this is not always the case.
Pim wrote: "Would it not be magnificent if His Word finds support in the sciences?"
On the other hand, would it not be magnificant if the sciences find support in His Word? One example of this, Isaac Newton and his two books approach.
"Or is the naturalistic component too much to handle?" - Pim
Yes, sometimes it is 'too much to handle.' That is, it doesn't belong, isn't proper to invoke. Some conversations exceed its boundaries and inevitable limitations.
"Let's assume for the moment that reciprocal altruism [RA] arose via evolutionary processes (as the evidence seems to suggest). What would that mean?" - Pim
No, let's not assume that. Let's instead reason/think together. RA is a concept invented by Robert Trivers. I encourage you to dig deeper to discover the connections between his work and naturalism, materialism, scientism and the secularization of science (as socially acceptable knowledge). This is a type of thinking that thoroughly disagrees with the mission of ASA, as far (or near) as I understand it. R. Dawkins is an outgrowth of such thinking as Trivers' enabled.
This topic shakes the foundations of so-called 'social evolution,' as Trivers promotes (e.g. he wrote a book with that title). I am concerned that those whose theology, as with Pim, is too tightly knitted together with evolutionary thought (perhaps in defense against being labelled a creationist or appearing as an un-scientific or anti-scientific Christian) will have difficulty discerning what is 'natural' from the meaning of 'reciprocal altruism' and/or an 'ethic of reciprocity.' That is why this thread equivocates on the meaning of RA as an evolutionary inevitability - morality and ethics, I would argue, are not 'random' products of evolution.
Gregory A.
Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
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?
...
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.
---------------------------------
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 21:41:01 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 26 2006 - 21:41:01 EST