Re: [asa] Altruism and ID

I hate to rehash old ground (events vs process?
thread), but it really seems to me like this is coming
back to the same issue. If I'm interpreting Pim and
Greg correctly, Pim is arguing that the attribute of
altruism is directly caused by our physical make-up
(i.e. emergent property), while Greg is arguing that
it is a spiritual attribute which occurs because there
is a non-physical part of us. Please feel free to
correct this if I'm understanding incorrectly...

Iain, in your comments below, you state that "one's
emotions are (at least
> in part) governed by
> chemicals in your body (hormones etc)? I wouldn't
> say totally, but there is
> at least some part of it that is determined by
> hormonal responses." Does't the admittance of "at
least in part" affirm what Greg is saying, in that
there is a non-physical piece to the altruism puzzle?
Interesting that you also use the word "propensity"
for altruism--gets back to my idea of a soul (spelled
out in the events vs. process thread), in which our
brain is simply the physical prism through which our
souls are reflected--our physical brains directly
influence that reflection (i.e. our *propensity*), but
they are not the source of the light (God is the
source of our recognition of and our desire of
altruism). Would this be a fair assessment of your
view of altruism?

Christine Smith

--- Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Uncharacteristically, I'm on Pim's side here
> (goodness knows, we've had some
> bitter disagreements!)
>
> Would you not agree that compassion is an emotional
> response to a set of
> circumstances, and that one's emotions are (at least
> in part) governed by
> chemicals in your body (hormones etc)? I wouldn't
> say totally, but there is
> at least some part of it that is determined by
> hormonal responses.
>
> Compassion and altruism seem to go hand in hand. My
> voluntary work is as a
> result of compassion I feel for those who are
> suffering, but who am I to say
> that this makes me a "better" person than someone
> who doesn't care? Maybe
> it's because I have a greater propensity to have
> compassion because of
> distributions of various chemicals, which can then
> be linked to genes etc.
> Since there are many people who testify about the
> organisation I work for
> who say that it has literally saved their lives
> (from suicide), it seems
> reasonable to say that my genetic makeup assists in
> a process that is saving
> lives, and thereby ensuring survival? Maybe that's
> why such genes exist.
>
> So what I'm saying is that "altruism" isn't of
> itself a biological concept -
> but that the propensity for altruistic behavour
> nonetheless has biological
> roots, and may be therefore expainable in terms of
> evolutionary processes.
> I think (correct me if I'm wrong, Pim) that this is
> what Pim is saying, in
> shorthand by suggesting that altruism "evolved".
> IOW, our propensity for
> altruism, compassion etc evolved.
>
> There you go, Pim. A let off. I'll probably go
> back to challenging you
> before long! :-)
>
> Iain
>
> On 6/13/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > The likelihood of my having continued interest to
> 'discuss' altruism and
> > ID with Pim much after this is very small.
> >
> > My apparent confusion is Pim's intrusion. Is he
> really so stubborn and
> > full-of on-line debate and insult throwing against
> ID and ID advocates that
> > he won't pause for a moment and simply admit:
> concepts are not biological
> > entities?
> >
> > "the concept of altruism evolved, refers to how
> scientists and
> > philosophers have learned more and more about
> altruism and the meaning of
> > altruism has gained various meanings." - Pim
> >
> > Let's apply a linguistic analysis to this
> paragraph: the word 'evolved' is
> > linked with 'more and more' - this has been called
> the 'progressivist'
> > legacy of evolutionary philosophy. 'Scientists and
> philosophers learn'
> > suggests that science and philosophy is
> 'evolving,' i.e. getting better,
> > i.e. progressing - new knowledge is added to our
> understandings. The
> > passive voice is twice used: 'have learned' and
> 'has gained' - such language
> > is consistent with evolutionary philosophy that
> underpriviledges human
> > agency. 'Various meanings' - this acknowledges
> that many fields of study can
> > attach meaning to the concept of 'altruism.' O.k.
> >
> > Now that the linguistics is addressed, let's start
> conceptualizing! The
> > concept of evolution may CHANGE, but it does not
> EVOLVE. A concept is not a
> > bio-physical entity! Ideas are not physical
> things; don't listen to the
> > philosophy of Marx as an authority here. Let those
> who are conversant in
> > ideas, as a profession, take priority over
> naturalists (Wilson, Trivers,
> > Dawkins, et al.) who have ideological bones to
> pick with an altruism rooted
> > in religious understandings of the place of human
> beings in the universe.
> > Pim's definition of altruism seems devoid of any
> reference to spiritual
> > wisdom; the evolution of humanity is an entirely
> physical process and the
> > ethics of human life are reducible to genes! Where
> is God in Pim's version
> > of 'science says' altruism?
> >
> > Meanings are indeed constructed, filtered through
> human knowledge, feeling
> > and experience. Reason, emotion and fantasy are
> involved together. Let's not
> > package off our knowledges and understandings so
> quickly. It is not so
> > cut-and-dry as a physicist/physical oceanographer
> might imagine it.
> >
> > There is much more to this than simply 'science
> has discovered...'
> > - it gets at the fundamental meanings, values and
> purpose of science in
> > contemporary societies, and the importance of
> philosophical and theological
> > knowledge and even wisdom in forming our
> collective and individual
> > identities.
> >
> > Why natural scientists should be given priority in
> Pim's personal study of
> > altruism is a mystery. It seems to me that, caught
> within a paradigmatic box
> > of evolutionism, he merely reinforces the
> Enlightenment view that reason and
> > science will lead to progress.
> >
> > Now Pim, of course, has the opportunity to explain
> how he doesn't actually
> > adhere to my caricature of him, rather than simply
> lashing out at what he
> > thinks is apparent confusion on my behalf. That
> is, he could act
> > Christianly, with charity and grace, which fits
> with his study of altruism.
> >
> > Yes, of course I have incomplete knowledge (please
> excuse economics
> > language, thanks to Hayek) about Pim's
> motivations. But I still don't see
> > why he doesn't search for meanings, values and
> purposes attached to the
> > concept and/or ideology of 'altruism' that are
> more consistent with
> > Christian thought rather than allying himself (by
> this I mean quoting others
> > as if they are 'real' authorities) with Wilson,
> Trivers, Smith, Dawkins and
> > others who would deny the influence of religious
> thought on altruistic
> > behaviour. Such a position seems to me ultimately
> untenable and contra la
> > mission de ASA.
> >
> > Arago
> >
> > p.s. Pitirim Sorokin - *The Ways and Power of Love
> (1954)*
> >
>
*http://www.unlimitedloveinstitute.org/publications/books_articles.html*
> >
> >
> > *PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > Various people have suggested that I expand on my
> thesis as it may be that
> > Gregory's confusion can be resolved by some simple
> statements
> >
> > First of all, Gregory, I thank you for your
> questions in email, I am
> > however not interested in pursuing a discussion
> with you via private
> > email. I stand by my observation that ID is a
> negative argument, and
> > scientifically vacuous. I doubt that there are few
> reasons to argue
> > that the first is not the case, and the second
> issue is almost self
> > evident.
> >
> > As to the issue of evolution of concepts, there
> are of course two very
> > different issues being confused here. Let me
> clarify.
> >
> > The statement: the concept of altruism evolved,
> refers to how
> > scientists and philosophers have learned more and
> more about altruism
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 13 22:30:55 2007