Re: "Deep religious illiteracy"...
- From: "PG" <pgk9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:11:41 +0200
"Paul Grieg" <pgrieg@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
69113ca0-e7fd-4af8-ab3b-24f932e02596@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Jun 8, 8:45 am, "PG" <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > ... A C of E accusation levelled at the Labour Government according to a
report
| > out on Monday. Labour apparently also has "no convincing moral direction".
|
| As Gordon is C of S is this C of E having a go at their rivals across
| the border?
|
| > Is this another sign of an attempt to regain lost influence? Does the UK
| > have no moral compass without the Christian religion? Once again the
| > assumption of morality as God-given is implicit in any such statement.
| > Such a presumption flies in the face of strengthening evolutionary
| > theory that support an alternative explanation of qualities such as
| > altruism, integrity, compassion, honesty, sense of responsibility etc.
| > Would it not also assume that one faith
| > should have precedence over the alternatives?
|
| Evolutionary theory also explains selfishness (selfish genes...), lack
| of integrity, , and so on. But can it explain how to encourage
| altruism across tribal groups, when each group has grown 'by
| evolution' to be bitter rivals? Can you derive an 'ought' from an
| 'is'? Evolution seems to explain how 'things is', but not how we ought
| to act. For that, we need some moral laws, like 'treat everyone else
| as you would be treated yourself (whatever tribe...)'. Most
| intelligent, moral people would agree with this rule. But where does
| it come from? Given the ongoing bitter rivalries evolution engenders
| between non-kin groups can you say it evolved naturally? Given that it
| appears in Buddhism and other non-theist moralities can you say it
| comes from God?
Evolutionary psychology certainly offers explanations for the development of
'positive' (altruistic) behavioural drives - not surprising really, as the
theory argues that this behaviour has developed to assist kin selection and the
survival of our genes... and guess what, here we are today to discuss it!.... :)
How and why reciprocal altruism evolved, how this (ie cooperative behaviour)
benefits kin selection, is central to a purely evolutionary explanation of human
behaviour. Taking this argument a step further, something very similar to
allegedly god-given objective moral codes would have developed regardless of the
existence of deities. So called 'objective' moralities have simply taken what
comes naturally, and encoded it into religious dogma.
So why we do not demonstrate such charitable behaviour to one and all equally?
You have to consider that reciprocal altruism is said to first have evolved as
an
effective tool for the promotion of social cohesion, cooperation providing
individuals
within a group with a better chance of passing on their genes. However
originally these were smallish groups (numbering at most in the hundreds), in
former hunter-gatherer societies. The effectiveness of reciprocal altruism in
contemporary society is less obvious - helping neighbour, family and local
community/tribe is one thing (on a potential - even if unconscious - quid pro
quo basis), but the benefits of donating to the starving in Eritrea is less
clearcut. Nonetheless, the inclination to do the former can and does extend
itself to the latter, even if somewhat diluted.
How to encourage altruism across tribal etc groups? - that's an interesting
question. There was the C4 documentary on racism recently - not black/white, but
black/black racism. A sense of overall black unity was being undermined in
immigrant areas in the UK by tribal differences, even where there was a single
religion in common. In other words, beyond a certain size the reciprocal
altruism factor can, especially in pressure or survival situations, prove to be
too remote - and be outweighed by other instinctive drives affecting our
behaviour. We sometimes therefore revert to type - after family, trusting and
sharing with those closest to us socially, racially, tribally etc., we are
inclined to be less charitable to those outside our immediate environment.
Can evolutionary psychology explain how we ought to behave? Hardly. But it
attempts to explain *why* we behave as we do, and if correct, the fact that this
implies no objective morality is no reason to invent one! We have to make the
best of understanding how things work and why, and try to apply this 'to the
greater good'. It won't be easy, because even if we know this to be the best
way forward for mankind, our instincts for self-preservation etc are still
barely evolved from those that served us best in the Stone Age, even if our
knowledge and understanding has made a vast leap forward.
To those that are sceptical about reciprocal altruism without a supernatural
moral code, I would suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
about evolutionary game theory, and in particular the Prisoner's Dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
I would be interested to hear believers' opinions on the latter.
pga
.
- References:
- "Deep religious illiteracy"...
- From: PG
- Re: "Deep religious illiteracy"...
- From: Paul Grieg
- "Deep religious illiteracy"...
- Prev by Date: Altruistic plants
- Next by Date: Re: Collaborative Ministry is the modern buzz word but is really a load of bun
- Previous by thread: Re: "Deep religious illiteracy"...
- Next by thread: Re: "Deep religious illiteracy"...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
