@johnm so, as you @Christy say, evolutionary biology cannot prescribe Christian morals, but perhaps it can help “contextualize moral principles in a biological reality.” This seems to me to be one way (probably not the only way) that biology can contribute to Christian ethics.
[/quote]
I think I am in agreement with you and Christy that “biology cannot prescribe Christian morals”. However, for me personally, it is Teilhard’s postulate that humankind is the witness of a third Universal Sphere, the Noosphere, which is on a par in importance with the Cosmosphere and Biosphere, that helps me put it in context. It helps me solve the apparent enigma that St. Paul faced in Rom. 7:15-20–'I fail to do what I want to do (dictated by Jesus teachings in the Noosphere), and instead I do what I hate (instinct from biological evolution). Even a saint like Paul finds it difficult to transcend the self interest inherent in biological evolution.
We are taught that Jesus was truly human. Thus he felt the need to pass on his genes to the following generation. He certainly had the opportunity to pass on his biological genes, but we know he did not (except in some best selling novels). Instead he chose to pass on his teachings, his Noogenes, to help following generations achieve his Father’s aims–creatures that attempt to be co-creators, to become imago Dei. It should be apparent that in the future both our biological and spiritual natures are going to be dependent largely upon Noospheric evolution.
Al Leo
[/quote]
I should have said “the rule” as I was thinking of the selection process that governs evolution.
That morality, e.g the fundamental rule of order, that allows our existence to be and to continue makes no sense to you you as being the cause of evolution makes no sense to you might come from your definition of morality. It is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong that is essential for evolution.
Roger,
Thanks for your response. You are correct that in Genesis 1, God saw creation to be “good” on each of the seven days, and at the end (v.31) saw it all as “very good.” Whether this means that the natural world (creation) is “intrinsically valuable” and therefore morally considerable, and if so, how, is an important question. Whether or not our behavior in relation to the natural world should be understood in moral terms is another important question. But I would like to ask what human behavioral evolution (hbe) brings to the question of the relationship between us humans and the greater earthly creation? Does hbe provide any information about our human nature that could help us better understand why we behave as we do vis-à-vis the natural world?
Al,
Thanks for the references. I will look at them. Most of this is over my head, but I would venture to comment that we really know very little about human evolution (especially cultural, social, moral evolution). In my limited reading, I have seen several different proposals (hypotheses) offered with varying levels of enthusiasm and self-assurance. But I think we need to be careful. We do know some things, but there’s a lot we don’t know.
Thanks again.
Al,
Thanks for your comments. You touch a number of issues, but please allow me to comment on just one. If I understand, you seem to be equating our evolved nature (biological instincts and propensities), with our sinfulness, our sinful nature, or, at least, our tendency to behave wrongly (as Paul describes in Rom 7: 15-20). I suggest that the role of our evolved nature in our moral life is more complicated. Some instincts and evolved propensities are not necessarily bad and, sometimes may be good. For example, a mother following her (apparently) instinctual or “natural” propensity to care for her child is, in my view, doing the morally good and right thing. Jesus seemed to challenge kinship relations (Mk 3:34-5), but I still think that some kinds of kin-preferences are not morally problematic. It may be likewise with other evolved propensities (in-group preference, self-interest, etc.). Thus, to work out an ethical system that integrates the moral values and norms of the gospel with human biological nature and evolved instincts would be a complex and difficult task indeed.
Marvin, I hoped I made it clear that I believe that no creature can make a moral choice unless it/he/she has a mind and a conscience. How could you have concluded differently?
Al Leo
John, I must be failing to get my points across clearly, judging from your post and from Marvin’s. I do believe there is a close connection between our tendency to behave wrongly (Paul; Rom. 7:15-20) and our evolved nature which has a strong component of selfishness. Prior to about 40K BP Homo sapiens brains had not yet developed into Minds, and so they lacked a conscience. Thus they could not truly make moral choices. As Paul put it (Rom. 5: 12-15) there was no sin before the Law (of Moses).
As you know, I take the very unorthodox position that the GLF that enabled brain to operate both as Mind and Conscience ought to be seen as a Gift, not a curse, even though that made Sin a possibility. It also made it possible for a human to act in the image of God–to act as co-creator with Him.
I think it is misleading when sociobiologists look to examples of altruism in the kin selection demonstrated by social insects, wild dog packs, or even mother bird caregiving. I believe that the human society that Jesus envisioned as he instructed us to “love your neighbor as yourself” is on another plane altogether. To achieve it, we must, in a real sense, be Born Again--born into a spiritual sphere where the selfishness of Darwinian evolution does not call all the shots.
Al Leo
Why do you consider the first action to be incoherent with regards to the second one and declare it a change in behaviour. The choice of both actions is coherent in my eyes but you imply a difference in morality. Why?
If you understand evolution the way I do it is not have selfishness in evolution, as until the fall selfishness did not exist. It could only come into existence with the fall, e.g. the eating from the tree of self realisation. It’s not until you have gained selfconsciousnes that you can understand something is for or against you in relationto the self. That is not even selfawarenes, as that exists in other species as well that they can recognise themself but they do not put their self before others.
By the way, Jesus never instructed us to love our neighbour like ourself but like thyself. The English translation often lacks that distinction but it is essential in understanding what rules evolution. It is the integrative power of loving thyself, not oneself, that allows evolution to occur
You are right when you say I do not understand evolution the way you do. And, if you want to be that technical, I suppose that a creature than does not fully recognize self, cannot be selfish. Never the less, by whatever words you want to describe it, and whether or not it came before or after "eating from the tree of self realization", the action of an elder bird killing its younger sibling to assure that it survives times of famine–that action would be immoral and unethical if committed by a human. To me, describing it in terms of “the Fall” is pure obfuscation. Sorry, but I’m that thick-headed.
Al Leo
it appears that you consider the elder bird to kill it’s younger sibling for its own survival. To believe that, if you claim to understand that it does not know it’s “self” it would indeed suggest an element of thick-headedness. “The fall” is indeed what would make this act immoral as it would imply that the bird acted upon the benefit for it’s own self over another self.
I’ve never hear anybody make a distinction over the difference between ‘yourself’ and the King James word: ‘Thyself’. How does the latter understanding of this command differ (if indeed it does) from the common English version: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’? Given that this is one of the big two, it would behoove us to understand it well!
I don’t believe the bird is making a conscious decision to act one way or the other. Roger hates the term Dawkins coined for it, but I think it describes the situation in a way non-experts like me can understand it: the action is driven by "selfish genes". There are times when the effort to be too precise with wording actually get in the way of information transfer.
Al Leo
The term “selfish gene” is precisely the problem of Dawkinism. Think about it in the terms of linguistic propagation of words. Would you postulate Ideas or Words to be selfish?
I think it is used as an excuse for human selfishness all caused by its genes. However if you think about it you will figure out that they are not selfish at all as they are altruistic in the form of giving context to other words / genes. They do not support their own existence but that of the entire system.
Tell me under what circumstances you would think the death of individuals is morally justifyable?
The distinction is fundamental to the logic coherence of a Christian worldview.
The “golden rule” is a self centered morality as it makes your own perception of morality the standard. If you are into masochism it would justify you to treat others in accordance with your own standards. Your own morality rules.
In the context of a society that was based on tribal survival it should become clear very quickly that the “self” is not the individual but the wider group as the love for ones own self over your tribe was frowned upon.
It should be clear from the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, to lay down his life for the benefit of those who he loved, would be in conflict with a law that would be centred on yourself as in the meaning your own existence. It is only coherent with a self outside your own, thus the 3rd person “thyself”. The selfish definition of “yourself” is clearly a consequence of the modern self centered thinking, but if you consider that the you is used to address crowds it should become clear in context. Defining the “self” outside the individual is key to the understanding of the fall, the shift of the definition of the authority over the self from God and creation as the self to the individual as the self. The latter automatically leads to the problem of sin, e.g. to be in conflict with all the rest of creation.
That is why we don’t drop or ignore the first (and even greater!) commandment that preceded this one: To love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. I think it would have gone without saying (both to first century audiences as well as most of us now) that treating others as you would treat yourself obviously does not apply to those who opt for self-injury or suicide. Those who have landed themselves in more comfortable stations in life (this would include Jesus’ listening audience here of scribes and Pharisees who are not at that moment struggling with various suicidal afflictions) are quite well aware enough of our own tendency to reserve the best things for ourselves and those closest to us. I think it’s pretty safe to understand Jesus’ words just as they are as a call away from that (certainly away from our innermost circle–that is our very ‘self’). Still your point is well taken that modern English so often fails to distinguish between ‘you’ and ‘you all’. I know this comes up in Paul’s writings quite a bit. So it would be interesting to hear any Greek / Hebrew scholars here step up and tell us if the King James got something right where more modern versions fell down on the job! Does ‘Thyself’ really mean ‘Thyselves’? Far be it from me to disagree with your emphasis on community rather than individual. I think your emphasis is a more needed one in our modern societies.
Thanks. Guess I am not good in expressing it but I feel you understand my thinking.
As you are a native english speaker, how does the “royal we” work? I think the plural versions of thyselves devalues the shared self as it would imply individual self’s. After all in your children you become one flesh, not several fleshes. So are they or is the creation that comes from you part of you or not?