If you highlight text, a “quote” will come up in a gray box, just click it and the quote will come up in your reply. That said, my iPad seems to have trouble with it though the desktop works fine, for some reason.
The notion to “do onto others” is however a rule that is not as wise as you might think, as it justifies one’s own desires to be the point of reference. This is actually anything but wise and nothing to aspire to. The call instead to love thy neighbour like thyself is quite the opposite as the focus is on your loved ones, and demands selfless actions towards your neighbours. That the demand to love thy neighbour does not use the love for yourself as a point of reference must be clear to anyone capable of logical thinking,as the ultimate act of love, to give ones own life for the sake of the ones you love, cannot be satisfied if the focus of love would be the love for your own self - as Jesus demonstrated by his own actions and also told his disciples as in saying to love one another like he had loved them, e.g.to give their lives for each other.
1 Like
I could do that once anybody had decided what “bad” is. Nietzsche didn’t seem to have any problem dismissing the whole “good / bad” moral system as an illusion promulgated by or for the weak.
Neither humanism nor religion generally is based on science though they can acknowledge / celebrate / include science within them to varying degrees.
I don’t think of their non-scientific basis as a flaw, but just an honest acknowledgment of reality. I’m glad we agree. And I’m happy that you are “settling for” any moral mess at all. The fact that morals are even part of any non-dismissive discussion is a healthy sign. Anger, self-righteousness, and even sensitivities to hypocrisy are all signs of a culturally active moral system. To me it isn’t a dispute so much as who / what explains the origin of such things so much as it is who / what will do the best job sustaining them now in productive ways. That said, you are correct that philosophically speaking, just because something “works” doesn’t guarantee or prove its truth. It is yet another faith conviction many of us share that there should be correspondence between truth and things that work. That is one reason we like science so much – and why science has thriven so well in its theological context.
just to state that the justification for science stems from its theological approach to reality, e.g.the acceptance of causality and the argument that the primary cause has bound reality by laws making it comprehensible to the human mind. Thus theology is the basic justification of science.
Thank you for your long and complex response. I appreciate your words and the study and thought that are behind them. It is a pleasure to interact with a person who has thought deeply about these issues and who is trying to get a little better understanding. There are not many of you around, so I am grateful for the privilege of meeting with you. You touch on many topics. A proper response would require many pages. I will only try to respond as best I can to one or two of your points. My apologies for not responding in a more complete way.
You say that “co-worker,” “co-creator,” “co-operator,” or “co-llaborator,” “with God” does not imply “co-equal.” Perhaps, but this is a risky use of language. While some may understand it as not implying equality, some may just as easily understand it otherwise. Talking this way comes perilously close to joining the serpent (Gen 3) in inviting the pursuit of quasi-divinity. I suggest it is far better to avoid such talk for a species so easily given to foolish arrogance. Besides, God’s “invitation” to “participate” in the divine project does not, so far as I can see, imply that we are or can be “co-creators with God”? And there is widespread disagreement among us Christians as to what that project is. Perhaps we should try to figure that out first before we declare ourselves “co-creators with God” in it.
Regarding the passage from Hebrews, I do not understand how this can mean that we are “co-creators” with God. The point here is not that we are intrinsically “like God” but, in fact, the opposite: we are not “like God.” Thus, God must reach down to us – become like us – in order to get through to us. God is the actor, not us. What this passage tells us is not how “wonderful” we are but how wonderful God is. I, like other humans, love being told how great and wonderful I am, but that is not what this passage is saying. We ought to respond not by declaring ourselves “co-creators,” or “co-anything” with God, but with offerings of humble awe and thanksgiving.
As a species, we do possess a measure of creativity that may, perhaps, manifest the imago dei in some respects. We are “creators,” but we are not “co-creators with God.” Again, such language is not theologically justifiable and risks grave hubristic error.
I suggest that a big part of the problem is that we do not accept the idea of original sin. Perhaps God has made us “a little lower than the angels,” (which, btw, is infinitely lower than God) but God also declares that we (I) have “turned away and become worthless.” Our (my) “throats are open graves,” and our tongues “practice deceit.” Our “feet are swift to shed blood, and ruin and misery mark [our] way.” “The way of peace [we] do not know,” and “there is no fear of God in [our] eyes.” (Ro 3:11-18). Even a superficial perusal of human (and Christian) history and our current behavior and predicament provide ample evidence to support this assessment. But this is a bitter and unpopular pill to swallow, especially in our wealthy, therapeutic, consumer culture, so there will be very few takers among us.
The leper cries out to Jesus: “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus says: “I am willing. Be clean.” He lays his hand on the man, and he is cleansed (Mk 1:40-45). This enacted parable is for us all. We are all helpless lepers (not “co-creators” with God). The “Jesus prayer” should perpetually be on our lips and in our hearts: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on me a sinner.” But like the healed leper, we proudly go off to brag and crow about our newfound status rather than going to the priest and offering the sacrifices that Moses commanded, as it were. In our vanity and self-absorption, we forget who and what we are and who and what Jesus Christ is. We may, in a limited and partial sense, be healed, but we remain rather ill.
Finally, not only do we not take original sin seriously, we do not take our biology seriously. We are evolved organic, physical beings – products of evolution, and as such we are endowed with certain behavioral dispositions and traits. Understanding these and taking them seriously can, in my view, go a long way to helping us understand our human nature, history, and situation and help us to find a way forward whereby we may be able to do a little better than the past and, perhaps, avoid some of our perpetual mistakes.
I leave you with the following quote: “Religious indifference to the very real constraints of biological embodiment in the name of moral transcendence is an intellectual presumption that subverts – rather than advances – love and genuine spirituality. As Pascal observed, ‘Man is neither angel nor brute. And the unfortunate thing is, he who would act the angel, acts the brute.’” (Jeffrey Schloss, “Introduction: Evolutionary Ethics and Christian Morality: Surveying the Issues,” in Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective, ed. Philip Clayton and Jeffrey Schloss (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 19). The same goes for our claims of “God-like” transcendence.
And finally, Yes! I am probably wrong about all of this.
P.S. Thank you also for your comments regarding our relationship with and behavior toward the rest of creation. If I can find time in the next few weeks, I will try to respond. Thank you again for your engagement and commentary.
1 Like
The doctrine of our sin nature is the only observable doctrine in the Bible. There is no historical evidence that humans have become more ethical/moral in the last 10,000 years. At best, we are more efficient at doing evil.
Maybe not, if we are talking about evolution and what is “natural.” I think there is evidence that Christianity influences cultures over generations and produces more ethical societies in ways that can be measured in terms of treatment of women, children, and marginalized groups, as well as education and voice in government. For example, see the research of Robert Woodberry on liberal democracies.
2 Likes
I agree, and I am certain that Jewish ethical monotheism brought positive changes to human civilization.
1 Like
Christy, thank you for the reference to Robert Woodberry’s paper. I have downloaded it and will carefully study it. I would like to find more good research on the moral history of Christianity and the church. Do you know of any other work that has been done in this area? Thank you.
Evolutionary ethics is an interesting field of study especially if you want to try to throw in a Christian perspective - which often changes depending upon which Christian you ask. Wading into this debate sort of reminds me how the Pharisees used to try to test Jesus and trick Him into saying something that would go against their understanding of the law based upon technicalities underpinned by the culture of the day. I really like Jesus’ answer to them in Matthew 22:34-40. “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Everything we do as Christians should be filtered through a lens of love for God and a love for others. Jesus said if we always measure our behaviours and choices through that standard then we will meet all the requirements of the law. So ethics to me are themselves an evolutionary construct that have become necessary because not every human tries to follow Jesus’ guidelines for behaviour. The very concepts behind evolutionary behaviour are very much “survival of the fittest” in nature, so there is nothing in that code that prevents one person from taking advantage of another to justify survival. Ethics themselves are evolutionary constructs that are necessary in a society that is moving away from God. Christians should not be motivated by ethics, but by love of God and others. Ethics are the guidelines required by a modern society based upon what behaviours will be tolerated by that society at that time. As such they will continue to evolve over time depending upon the cultural pressures of the day. Jesus command to His followers to love God and others is meant to supersede the ethics of the culture of the day.
1 Like
As a matter of history, the British were an imperial power before Darwin published. Your perspective is short sighted if you need a special critique for current politics.
There are social animals, however these social groups are genetically related and they compete for the good of the hive, ant hili etc , not for the good of all bees or ants etc. By contrast , only agape love sets Jesus and to a lesser extent us apart form all other animals. Jesus died childless for all humankind which goes contrary to all evolutionary ideas. For us to reconcile Christianity and evolution, we need to disconnect our origins from our present state.
1 Like
Historians suggest that we have managed to strap down the human impulse to war and invade to its most effective point in our history - - with fewer people dying of war and starvation (as a percentage) than at any other time in our history.
The present western civilisation has created the most effective and horrifying means of mass killing ever devised on this planet, and we have created the capacity for total human self annihilation (and probably the planet). I guess it takes a huge leap to think we have improved. 
But what self control so far …
Was there ever a cannon ball not shot … in the thousands?
Was there ever a bullet not shot … in the millions?
And yet so far, we have found a way to use only a fraction of our cannons and bullets, and only 2 atomic bombs.
Are we discussing the same planet? 
It took two world wars, with the death of millions, to show us we could destroy ourselves (and ONLY TWO ATOMIC BOMBS ???). Wow.
Since then, the world has seen never-ending smaller wars on every continent. Does sound like we are a destructive, immoral race to me. And for starvation, words fail me!!!
Don’t shoot the messenger.
I am relaying what some historians have said.
The theme? That of all the times to live as an ordinary human, this may be the best of all times.
I have no dog in this fight. Frankly, I’m in a big hurry to shuffle off the coil… because I’m just disgusted by plenty of things that I never had to see before…
It does get a bit depressing at times to see the apparent lack of progress in humanity, but indeed we are blessed to live in this day and time, at least in developed countries. The depravity we continue to exhibit almost moves me to Calvinism, but I am not a fan of craft beer.
Regarding war, I think the worst thing that has happened is that it is depersonalized with technology, and enables those who do not look for it to ignore the horrors. We also glorify it and violence in general in our popular culture with TV shows and video games.
4 Likes
Many benefits have been derived from medical, agricultural and technological advances. In my comments, I was mindful of the title that includes “human evolution and ethics (Christian or other)” - I do not think we have evolved in terms of advances in ethics via biology.
Yes, we have become economically more efficient at doing good and doing evil.
I almost want to disagree with you, and then disagree with myself for disagreeing with you.
Human psychology has always fascinated me, and the recent issues with domestic violence in sports made for an interesting case study. We had heard about men in sports committing violence against women, but it really came to a head when Ray Rice got caught on tape beating his girlfriend. Ray Rice wasn’t any worse than some of the other men that had abused the women in their lives, yet he paid a much higher price than those other men. Why? It seems that when we see violence we react much more strongly than simply hearing about it.
It really makes me wonder what role modern technology plays in how we treat others and view morality. The first american war to be photographed happened to be our own war, the Civil War. The photos taken of the dead at Antietam had a strong influence on the public. The public were being told about the war in word, but the pictures had an impact that no article could have. What influence did film and pictures have on the end of the Vietnam War and the protests against it? Why aren’t the pictures of the atrocities being done to Syrian refugees budging American policy?
Anyway, I think it is obvious that humans have a complex relationship with violence, technology, ethics, and psychology that is rather difficult to untangle.
2 Likes