Re: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins

I think that the Christian faith is on the side of the community of
believers. When each individual accepts Christ and dies to sin and raises to
life in baptism he or she becomes a member of the Body of Christ, "the
blessed company of all faithful people" as Cramner put it so eloquently.
Ephesians is very good on the Christian community as the family (household)
of faith and the body of which Christ is the head. (I have never been
comfortable with the individualistic notion of Christianity emphasized in
some traditions.) The early Christian community showed how to respond in a
society hostile to it--to bring the saving message of Christ and to "travel
the way of good works which God has prepared for us beforehand to be our way
of life" (Eph. 2:10). So the first Christians showed the rest of us how to
behave, to do good and sacrifice not only for the Body but for the whole
society. When the Christians stayed behind in a plague-ridden African city
in the year 300 to care for the sick, they transformed the rest of the
community, which discovered Christian love in action even at the risk of
death. Many as a result became believers.

I'm not convinced that altruism is to be explained solely in evolutionary
terms, but I should like to point out that Darwin recognized cooperation as
well as competition in animals ("survival of the fittest" in the competitive
sense was primarily Spencer's concept), and that this cooperation can even
extend outside one's species. Around the turn of the last century Prince
Kropotkin picked up on the "cooperation" side of evolution and developed it
in his book, "Mutual Aid." Wildlife biologists can tell you stories of
animals of one species coming to the rescue of those of another. I believe
that in "The Descent of Man" (if memory serves me well), Darwin speculated
that moral sensibility and sympathy was a product of evolution. While human
beings may have freely developed moral codes (e.g., the Athenians) or worked
them out under divine guidance or seen them as divinely bestowed (e.g., the
Hebrews), I do not see that this militates against the contribution of
evolution to ethics.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net>; "ASA Discussions"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins

>I agree totally that the Christian faith is 100% on the side of the
>individual versus society. "What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep
>and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open
>pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?" Luke 15:4.
>
> Surely, evolution deals always with the group rather than individual
> survival. Hence, I do not understand those who attempt to derive something
> like the Christian faith from evolutionary theory. In fact, the Christian
> faith has all to do with a particular historical event, viz. the death and
> resurrection of Jesus the Christ, rather than the history of life on earth
> or throughout the universe.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Don Perrett
> Sent: Tue 1/2/2007 11:25 AM
> To: ASA Discussions
> Subject: RE: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins
>
>
>
> Dick's examples may not seem to be the same to some. One is said to be
> conforming to natural laws and the other to man-made laws. While there
> are
> some man-made laws which have little to do with natural laws, most are
> man's
> feeble attempt at applying natural laws. Nature dictates survival. Most
> laws are intended to ensure that survival of the group at best or survival
> of the leader at worst. Either way it is man's forcing of what he takes
> to
> be for his own survival. This is about as natural as it comes. If we
> follow nature, what will it get us. Let's see.
>
> Animals live and fight for survival of themselves first, offspring second,
> then their group. It is purely and solely survival of the fittest. This
> is
> exactly what is preached by evolutionism. Selective breeding dominates.
> Some less able offspring will be allowed to starve or sometimes willfully
> killed in order to ensure the survival of the stronger offspring. Sick
> animals will be cared for when possible, but will be left behind if it
> threatens the well being of the others. Animals can suffer from
> depression,
> anxiety, anger, aggression, fear, etc. Animals have emotions and are at
> the
> total mercy of them. They have no choice to make. They either live
> according to their instinct or they risk death, in some cases, either
> themselves, their offspring, or their group. Animals are even easily
> addicted.
>
> I'm not saying that there isn't some sense of "altruism" in nature, I'm
> saying that altruism is based upon the idea of group survival not
> goodwill.
>
> If one examines the Bible, you will find things that appear to be just
> that.
> Rich F. has repeatedly quoted the OT with reference to eugenics, etc. But
> that's the OT. If that is what it is to be Christian. Look closer and
> you
> will also see sacrifice. What animal will willfully sacrifice itself and
> forgive those that seek it's death? It has no ability to do so. It lives
> instinctively and will defend itself, even at the expense of others. Can
> we
> not see our own natural animal behaviour in the ideas of group social
> orders? Can we not see our animal selves in the wars we fight, or in the
> hording of resources?
>
> More basically, are we supposed to say "I'm the best" and think only of
> one's self? And is that any different than creating a group and then
> saying
> "Our group is best"? Is that any different than having a single world
> group
> that says "We are best"? Letting go of one's self can only be achieved by
> one's self. One must stand alone before God and have a personal
> relationship and accountability. One cannot go unto God as a group. This
> is why individual rights to free choice and free will must override the
> groups. Not because a need for survival, like the animals, but because
> God's will is that our relationship with him be personal and accountable.
>
> Alpha and Beta males exists throughout the animal kingdom. All animal
> groups have leaders. The question is are humans supposed to have them? I
> do not believe so. The only Alpha is God. Therefore we are all Betas.
> Equally so, as we stand alone before our Alpha God. We cannot be Alphas
> because we are not gods. We are not animals either however and should not
> act as such. We are giving a place squarely between the animal and
> natural
> world, and God and his kingdom. When will we stop looking to the animal
> world for guidance. "Let's do like the animals because they are
> altruistic". Yeah right. Let's not and say we did. Act like a human and
> not like an animal. Praise not yourself so that you may praise God. If
> the
> whole of creation was made perfect and good then that seems enough for
> some.
> So therefore acting according to "nature" or what we perceive as natural
> must be ok. Well can anyone tell me which group of animals should we be
> acting like? Perhaps other primates since that is our nearest relatives.
> Even better, someone on the group once quoted a website that used bats as
> an
> example. I don't have wings. Point is the human group is supposed to act
> like humans. Now what does that constitute? Well I imagine that we as a
> group turned our backs on God and have therefore lost our sense of purpose
> and what our rights and wrongs are long ago. That is what the Bible is
> about. That is what Dick was trying to say. It's not that there aren't
> those that have the HUMAN sense of "The Law" but that for those without it
> written on their hearts, the Bible is there to re-write it upon them. So
> any of those who wish to ignore the Bible and just live according to
> nature
> may do so, but I would pack for hot weather.\
>
> Don Perrett
>
>
>
>
>
> Don P
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 2 14:55:14 2007