Re: [asa] Random and design

Expectation/may are very similar concepts. Reciprocal altruism is an
act which leads to rewards with the expectation although not
certainty that a particular act of kindness will be rewarded, just
that it may be rewarded since others in the group act out of very
similar motives.

So reciprocal altruism, as found also in other animals, certainly
does not seem to be that anti-Christian. So let's take a look at the
progression: selfishness, kin selection, group selection, internal
and external reciprocal altruism. Certainly a progression in
'spiritual growth' and an evolution towards the concept of agape.
Reciprocal altruism may be the best that we as humans can achieve
without divine grace. After all we are all with sin. And yet it is an
important step towards exactly this concept. Love thy neighbor, do
unto others... Unconditional love such as found in charitable giving
is encouraged through internal rewards which are beyond the control
of the human such as stimulation of the fronto-mesolimbic networks
(see the paper I quoted in an earlier message). In other words, the
evolved mechanisms of altruistic and reciprocal altruistic 'love' are
very Christian, and while they may not explain agape-like love, they
are an essential pathway towards such.

I quote:

Agape is a theocentric term that designates unqualified, radically self-
giving love. In this discussion, ethical categories such as concerns
about
fairness and claims of the self in relation to others do not apply,
because
the term is not “a rational, anthropocentric concept. It represents
the di-
vine extravagance of giving that does not take the self into
account” (Grant
1996, 19). Again and again in scripture we read that God is agape. The
Apostle Paul’s attempt to unpack this term in 1 Corinthians 13:4–8a
illu-
minates its character as a divine reality that becomes the ideal
basis for life.
In trying to express what agape is Paul uses about fifteen
descriptive words
or phrases that are difficult to accurately translate into English.
This is
because he uses the verb form for some words that function only as
adjec-
tives or nouns in English. The verb form tells us that agape is not
a thing
to be sought; it is action, a way of being in the world that
manifests the
divine: Agape protects, trusts, hopes, and perseveres with the other
in pa-
tience, kindness, selflessness, humility, equanimity, forgivingness.
This is
what God is and what we are to work toward. There is no expectation in
scripture that we can be fully successful. In fact, Paul bemoans his own
inability to do the things he knows he ought to do (Romans 7:15) and
writes at length of the need for God’s grace if we are to even come
close.
The Christian God is agape; this reality challenges us to live it as
best we
can. Ethical concerns like those mentioned above are important, but
they
do not justify rewriting the biblical understanding of agape to make it
compatible with modern thought. Ethics flows from rather than defines
the term.

ALTRUISM IN NATURE AS MANIFESTATION OF DIVINE ENERGEIA
by Charlene P. E. Burns Zygon, vol. 41, no. 1 (March 2006)

As Fricchione explains at the "Empathy Altruism and Agape" meeting
http://www.altruisticlove.org/

<quote>We must look for a process of evolution that is both broad
enough and deep enough to encompass the biological, psychological,
sociocultural and spirtual concepts of agape.</quote>

Similarly Dan Browning observes how these evolutionary concepts have
gained the attention of theologists and that even early philosophers
such as Aristotle or Aquinas understood these concepts.

<quote>The concepts of kin altruism, inclusive fitness, and
reciprocal altruism are beginning to influence theological-ethical
views of love. The breakthrough work of William Hamilton, George
Williams, and Robert Trivers on these ideas has not gone unnoticed in
theological debates about love. The biological evidence that genetic
parents will under certain conditions sacrifice for their offspring,
that nature has selected for parental care, that other genetically-
related family members are more likely to sacrifice for one another
than nonkin, has sensitized some theological ethicists to the
existence of similar insights assumed by, and sometimes embedded in,
Christian concepts of love. Pope and Browning have found naturalistic
observations in the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that
understood the role of kin preference in both mammalian relations and
human love. Aquinas had his own theories of kin preference, the role
of infant dependence in bonding males and females into families, and
the role of paternal recognition in developing paternal investment.
These insights served to give rise to a theory of love that saw the
developmental importance of kin preference, strong parental
investment, the dialectical relation between self-regard and other-
regard, and how these early formative influences, with the right
communal and symbolic reinforcements, can be extended analogically to
include nonkin, neighbors, strangers, enemies, and God. Stephen Pope
argues, and I concur, for a reconstruction and extension of Catholic
naturalism in light of insights from evolutionary psychology.</quote>

Meisinger discusses this ever expanding concept of inclusiveness
Sociobiology: The Conversation Continues CHRISTIAN LOVE AND
BIOLOGICAL ALTRUISM
by Hubert Meisinger

Abstract. The first part of my investigation of the Christian love
command and biological research on altruism is organized around
three key themes whose different forms both in the theological and
in the sociobiological context are investigated: The awareness of
expanding inclusiveness concerns the issue of extending love or
altruistic behavior beyond the most immediate neighbor, even to
enemies. The awareness of excessive demand concerns the question of
the ability of the human being, to fulfill an excessive demand placed
by the com-
mand of love or by altruistic admonitions. Threshold awareness
finally concerns the question whether love or altruism constitutes a
step on the way to a “new human” and a “new world.”
In the second part I introduce two models for the relationship
between Christian religion or theology and sociobiology. The model
by Ralph Wendell Burhoe is characterized by a functional approach
toward religion, which is the crucial factor within culture for
motivating human beings to act altruistically toward nonrelated
individuals. This functional analysis of religion is a constructive
contribution to a scientific description of the world. The other
model, by Philip Hefner, is theologically oriented and emphasizes the
intrinsic character of altruistic love, which has its origin in God
and whose anthropological preconditions are elucidated in
sociobiological research.

On Nov 27, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Don Perrett wrote:

>
> No one is arguing YOUR interpretation of reciprocal altruism.
> Which I believe is why Greg questioned your understanding of it.
> It is what is stated in the Wikipedia which you took the first
> opportunity to use as a reference. In the Wiki it does NOT say
> "may" it says "expectation". Now based upon YOUR interpretation of
> expect which was discussed earlier with the whole expect vs hope
> issue, then expectation of a reciprocation would mean that the only
> reason I do for others is that I will get something in return
> later. Is this not correct? Then how is this Christian?
> Christians are to do for others because it is the right thing to
> do. Agape is NOT conditional. Having an expectation of
> reciprocity is a CONDITION. In economics, any entity that hordes
> punishes not only it's self but the entire system. In society's it
> can also be the same, but regardless, the Christian concept of
> Agape is not in line with reciprocal altruism. In fact the ideas
> you seem to imply are very atheistic. Religion as a social science
> is usually a point made by those who believe it is just a form of
> social order used by those in power. As for scriptural
> commonality, th OT would certainly appear in agreement, but again
> not a Christian concept.
>
> Sorry if any of this sounds unclear, I've got bronchitis right now
> and I'm probably too medicated to concentrate. :)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 27 12:51:20 2006