On Nov 26, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:
> 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.
>
I fail to see how my position which privileges scientific findings
and tries to apply them to Christian teachings to find what I believe
significant overlap between the two. i fail to see why this is
improper (given the current epoch) or unbalanced. Whenever one
proposes a hypothesis it is unbalanced in the sense that it does not
give equal weight to other hypotheses. Yet this does not prevent
anyone from proposing competing explanations.
> 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.
A naturalistic basis need not mean naturalism.
>
> 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.
>
Yes, sadly enough it seems that Newton believed in the designer
interacting with the motion of the planets adjusting them continuously.
Either way, finding supporting between the two seems quite impressive.
> "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.
>
Why?
>
> "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.
Yes, Dawkins took advantage of these scientific findings and we as
Christians should be able to do the same. After all science does
little to prove or disprove one's faith although faith can often
restrict how science moves forward.
RA is a concept which was formulated by Trivers based on the work by
Hamilton to explain observations in nature and how they can be
explained scientifically. That his thinking enabled Dawkins to
formulate his thesis is hardly a reason to oppose Trivers' work.
>
> 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.
>
Then again, evolution is not really random. I'd say that RA is an
inevitable outcome of evolution forming a foundation for ethics and
morality. I do not care what people label me in their fears of what
may or may not happen when we pursue this path. Such would become too
much focused on speculations and unfounded fears rather than on
pursuing what science is showing us and how this ties in with out
Christian faith.
If evolution is correct, and the evidence strongly suggests that it
is, it is inevitable that we Christians knit together our faith with
these facts lest we want to become irrelevant, scientifically and
theologically (Augustine comes to mind again)
Pim
> 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 22:59:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 26 2006 - 22:59:02 EST