RE: [asa] Random and design

According to your quote, which quotes Paul, forgivingness is one of the the
attributes of Agape. If so then how do you reconcile that with the
punishment factors of reciprocal altruism mentioned in the first paragraph
of the Wiki page? Again, the discussion is "reciprocal" altruism, but you
continue to describe altruism. Also, as I have stated reciprocal altruism
is likely in line with OT, Judaism, Islam, etc, but not with Christian
Agape. BTW, I never used the term "anti-Christian". Non-Christian is not
the same as anti-Christian. Are you saying anything that is not Christian
is against Christ? While many atheists are anti-Christian, they need not be
by definition. Altruism is most often associated with atheists, and Agape
with Christians. So if one is just as good as the other, and we don't have
to worry we'll eventual evolve into agape, then what is the point of
religion? Evolutionary necessity? Sounds Hawkingish. If it is just an
evolutionary process, then mankind will eventual evolve into agape
regardless of God, right? Unfortunately it's not that simple. It will
require an evolutionary change in the course of one lifespan. Each
individual may evolve into agape but a society cannot, because societies do
NOT have relationships with Christ. Biology may have a factor in social
orders and behaviors, but not our relationships with God. The reason of
course is that due to the same biology we have free will (limited as it
were). Free will even allows us to go against the very animal behaviors to
which you seem to believe in. (Not meant to assume). What I mean by this is
that just because something occurs in certain animal groups does not mean it
is meant for humans. Personally I've always believed that our only chance
of evolving is to evolve past the old animal ways and move on to a social
and spiritual foundation that is BETTER suited for human groups (the old
owns don't work, i.e. socialism, democracy, classical theocracies, etc). Do
you know of any species on this planet which will love and forgive it's
enemies? So if Christ asks us to do this, does this not say that Christ
wants us to move past the animal instincts such as selfishness, anger,
aggression, etc? Nationalism, socialism, and just about any other ism are
the result of animal behaviour.
 
In a feeble attempt at expressing my point, please indulge me as I give a
personal (mine) example and you tell me if this is Christian or not. I will
tell you this, it is 100% an animal reciprocal altruistic situation, as
defined in the Wiki page. Hope everyone hears this.
 
My current job puts alot of hours on me. I have not had a single day off (7
days a week) since the 3rd week of January 2006. All of my staff have at
some time or another had days off aside from there normal days off, and some
have had vacations. (None work more than 40 hours a week, whereas I average
100+). All have had sick days called in. I do not get sick often (severe
enough to stop working). A couple of months ago I got very ill. I could
NOT get a single employee to come in to take my place. I have covered their
shifts numerous times, and because of this I EXPECTED that someone would
come in to help me when I was sick. Since no one would come in, I was so
upset that I wanted to fire the whole lot and start over. I ranted an raved
for a couple of days before I realized my sin. I was giving and helping
them in their needs but that does not mean that they must do the same for
me. My animal instinct got the better of me. I asked God for forgiveness.
What I did was exactly what would be called reciprocity. I wanted someone
to pay me back. I expected it. And I nearly cast them out of my colony
like the Wiki page states.
 
Do you honestly believe that this was Christian? Should I have cast them
out for not giving back? Must everyone pitch in or are there times when
some will not choose or be able to chip in? And if some do not should they
be punished and if so then which ones? Are there exceptions and who decides
which ones? And if you have noticed, this is the very dilemna we as a
society are today. We seem to think that if we create enough laws and rules
to cover all the variables we can make it work. Won't. Eventually we might
be evolved as a society if and when enough of us are forgiving and giving
enough (without wanting everyone to participate) that it outweighs
everything else. The sound barrier will be broken and society and human
nature can evolve beyond the old animal ways towards a Christian way.
 
Don Perrett
 

  _____

From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:51
To: donperrett@theology-perspectives.net
Cc: ASA Discussions
Subject: 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 Tue Nov 28 13:21:25 2006