Summations Only

I wrote You replied Your response addressed an entirely different subject than what I had written about. I was addressing the fundamentalist/literalist view of understanding the Bible.First off, your post suggests that your understanding of messiah isn't actually correct. The messiah is not a term suggesting any kind of divinity. The messiah was to be the one anointed by God to lead the Jews against their enemies, conquering them and rebuilding the Temple. There is no record of anyone at the time that believed that the messiah would be in any way divine. It isn't just the belief that Jesus was the Messiah that He is now believed to be part of the Trinity. There is much more to it that that. However, I digress....The idea of vicarious redemption or atonement theology has always been a subject of much debate. I simply see it this way. Jesus went into Jerusalem as a great act of faith knowing what happened to those who upset those in power. He believed that in doing that that God would in some way validate and vindicate His life and message.It is the Christian belief that God did just that through His resurrection into a new form of life. Without the resurrection Jesus is simply another in a fairly long list of failed messiahs. The resurrected Jesus is the first born of the new creation at the end of time as we know it when it is believed that this world will be renewed and where death and evil are no longer part of it. Through Jesus, God was establishing His kingdom of those who love His truth, justice, love etc and that kingdom would be one that would stretch from this world into the next.It wasn't God that put Jesus to death it was the Romans. It was God that resurrected Jesus saying to all of us that death does not have the last word.If you really are interested in this, here is a talk given by N T Wright, a man who Newsweek called the leading New Testament scholar in the wolrd. The Servant and JesusYou might want to skip down to the heading Studying Jesus Today: Introduction.Cheers
Greg

It would help if you would even read the part you quote. I said, "those who love His truth justice love etc". I said nothing about adhering to any specific doctrine. If you read the last part of Matthew 25 about separating the sheep from the goats it is obvious it is about the heart. What pleases God is those that love sacrificially simply because in their heart they know it is the right thing, not for any thought of reward.Here are a couple of CS Lewis quotes. This quote is from his Narnia series and is from "The Last Battle". Aslan is the Christ figure and Tash is Darth Vader representing the dark or evil side. The speaker is Emeth who was a soldier serving Tash. Here is what Lewis writes:

quote:

---

So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable tree till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like an ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Langour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.

​

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

​

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

​

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

​

Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

---

Here is another Lewis quote from "The Great Divorce".

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

---

Simply put again, it is loving, truthful, just, and kind hearts that make us right with God, it is not about having the right doctrine. See my signature for a Biblical quote that I contend is consistent with the overall context that we are led to in the Biblical narrative.

Here is a quote from the Gospel of John chap 1.

quote:

---

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

---

It is clear that it was the "Word", (or wisdom) of God that existed from the beginning. John goes on to say that the "Word" became flesh. The Bible is clear that Jesus was born of a woman. He had a beginning. He did however embody the "Word" or Wisdom" of God the Father - the Father who He talked about and the Father He prayed to.It wasn't that God sent His Son to die, it was simply what happened to those who ticked off the wrong people and God made it clear that the wrong people don't have the last word by resurrecting Jesus.

I was going to ask you to put in a good word for me when you get there but then I remembered another requirement that is in my signature. You have to be humble...sorry about that.

Aren't we the happy little diplomat. As you just keep asserting your simplistic preconceived ideas of what it is that I believe without responding to what I actually wrote there is not a lot of point to keeping this discussion going.

Sure. My only point is that we all believe things subjectively where we can't have absolute knowledge. We can't know everything but we form beliefs. I'm going to watch a football games after I finish this. I believe I know who is going to win but I don't know it. I have always said that all the world's major religions, (and probably the minor ones as well), have the Golden Rule or some form of it as part of their doctrine. The same can be said for secular groups as well. This indicates to me that there is a universal truth which would stem from a universal moral source.The question is, how can we have a universal moral truth strictly as a result of an endless series of natural processes? If, as has been claimed on this forum, morality and more specifically altruism have simply evolved through natural processes over time then all morality is simply transitory. We are presumably still evolving so what we deem good or moral today might seem immoral and evil in the distant future. How can there be an ultimate good or evil if we are simply the result of mindless processes that are neither good or evil. Of course religions are man made but that does not mean that they are false. Religion is about understanding the nature of God or whatever else we might call him. I understand the nature of God through the belief that His true nature was embodied by Jesus Christ.What proof do you have that miraculous events can't happen. We don't normally experience them. However you might just look at life itself as being miraculous so who knows what else is possible. How do you know it's a good thing. Western civilization would presumably be better off if we were to annihilate other societies so that they would not be using up the world's resources. We in the west could have uncontested access to those resources. Maybe that should be called good.What is your basis for calling anything good or evil? Edited by GDR, : typo

Well no. There are lots of times that I hope my team will win but my belief is my team will lose. My only point is that we all have beliefs based on what we know, but we don't have absolute knowledge. Well sure. I want to get along with people I have contact with certainly. As individuals we have no need to get along with people in the third world, and as a matter of fact, as I said earlier our society would be better off without them using up the world's resources. However, many of us still spend time and money to improve their lives. Fine, but I contend that it isn't reasonable to have evolved from an infinite series of non-intelligent, non-moral processes. You throw around the word "know" in that sentence. That is actually your belief. Whatever happened to "survival of the fittest"? Why do people do the "right" thing when it clearly isn't in their best interest? Sure, but again, that tells us nothing about whether or not there is an intelligent and moral root cause or if we evolved strictly from non-intelligent, non-moral processes. You are simply expressing your subjective conclusion or in other words your belief. Let's hope you're right. That's your belief. It is my belief that we'll look back and wonder how on earth anyone could believe sentient beings with an understanding of morality could have resulted from mindless particles regardless of the process. However, I do believe that the world religions will continue to evolve through greater understanding. That is your belief. I don't say that I know that my view is correct. It is my belief. Well, you didn't really answer the question. If we are simply the result of an infinite regression of non-intelligent, non-moral natural processes that have evolved from non-intelligent, non-moral particles, (without even dealing with the question of why those particles were there in the first place), then why should we trust any conclusion we come to? Your argument is simply that it seems to work.I assume that you would claim that we are not teleological beings in the sense of there being an ultimate purpose to existence. If this is the case then why should I, or anyone else spend time or money on someone that I will never meet in poor circumstances half way around the world. It is my BELIEF that we are here for a purpose, which is to make this world a better place for everyone and every living thing, not for my benefit but simply because I believe that it is the right thing to do. (Of course, I am a long way from fulfilling that purpose but hopefully I am making progress.)If in the end if it is all futile and when this world disappears nothing that has happened matters then why bother. Don't take this as an argument that atheists can't choose the right thing or that atheists can't adhere to the Christian ideal better than I do. It is simply my belief that either the atheist or myself can and often do choose the right thing because the first cause for life was both intelligent and moral. On that we agree. Thanks be to God.

The problem is that you keep confusing process with cause or agency. I'm ok with being called a theistic evolutionist but that overstates my knowledge of evolution or biology. I simply accept evolution based on what the majority of people that do have specific knowledge on those subjects believe.However, those experts are no more knowledgeable than you or me when it comes to "why" evolution took the form it did. Either there was a pre-existing process that started the evolutionary process or there was an intelligent agency that set the evolutionary process in motion. If you accept the non-intelligent cause then of course the pre-existing process would require a pre-existing process and on and on.The same holds true for the evolution of morality. I agree that there has been an overall advancement, (with a long way to go) in so-called civilization but that does not answer the question of whether or not the agency that caused it is moral or mindless.Evolution is simply a process that gives a history of life. It does not tell us anything about why the process exists. I do accept that emotion can be found in other primates. I am not qualified to answer about whether it evolved or not, although I think that in some way Dawkins was on to something in his ideas about memes. However, once again that tells us nothing about whether the agency that brought this about is moral or totally mindless. What you're saying is analogous to looking at an object that comes out of a 3D printer and giving the printer the credit for pushing its own start button and for designing itself.in a sense you have created a god out of the evolutionary process and a mindless god at that. You and others have posted unevidenced theories of how altruism evolved. Those theories may or may not be correct, but regardless, it still tells us nothing about why moralism and altruism have evolved the way they have.

Once again you reply to your pre-conceived ideas of what you think I believe instead of actually reading what I post.Frankly I find that video extremely unconvincing and a long way from being scientific. (All of those babies are old enough to have experienced love from their parents and will respond the way they have as a result of that love.) However, I don't actually disagree with the conclusions that they form.Still, regardless of whether their conclusions are right or wrong it still tells us nothing about the cause or agency of why things are the way they are.Try re-reading my last reply to Tangle. Like Tangle you confuse process with cause or agency.AbE Thought about this statement later which is off the point I was making.You equate altruism with co-operation. Of course we gain by co-operating. It makes it easier to co-operate in order to combine assets to help the third world or to combine forces to commit genocide. Co-operation is not a moral position but simply a means to and end whether it be for good or evil.Edited by GDR, : Had another thought.

I'm not at all sure which loophole you think I'm looking for but as far as the rest of the post is concerned we're pretty much on the same page. The only thing I'd add is if science is eventually able to come up with an explanation for abiogenesis it doesn't change anything. It would only be an explanation for how it happened. It wouldn't answer the question of whether or not it happened by blind chance or as a result of pre-existing intelligence, just as we agree is the case for evolution.Incidentally there are those that do equate evolution with cause or agency and quite honestly I thought that is where you were at. My apologies. Agreed. I might add though that we can see that much of the evolutionary process happens naturally but we really don't know whether or not the process was tinkered with periodically. However, as regards to my Christianity I'm fine with it either way. There are two issues with this.First off if we accept that altruism is simply one aspect of the evolutionary process then we are still left without knowing whether or not there is an intelligent moral agency behind it all. It is no different than the discussion around physical evolution.However we do differ on the how. As I said to GIA, we live in groups and co-operate for our own good and for others of our group. We can use that sense of tribalism for our own benefit, for the benefit of others or to commit atrocities. What part of the evolutionary process would lead us to self sacrifice for others whom we have never met and never will, or to even give and love sacrificially for other species?We don't even know what consciousness is. If all life is simply the result of mindless processes starting off in a universe of mindless particles the idea of right or wrong is just what seems to work in any given circumstance. Maybe one time it is good to co-operate with a neighbour, and other times it just works best to bump him off.There is no hard evidence that altruism evolved as a component of the ToE. It is strictly a subjective conclusion. Certainly we can see people and societies being influenced by cultural memes but that frankly is the way that Christianity said it is supposed to work. Essentially Christ taught that we are called to go out and infect the world with God's love, justice, peace, mercy etc, which sounds a lot like Dawkins' cultural memes.In both of our cases we hold a belief based on our subjective conclusions about the world we live in.

Evolution is not cause or agency. Something was required to kick start the process. Was it an infinite regression of processes or was it because of a pre-existing intelligence? We can choose to believe either one but it is a subjective conclusion or belief.

After a discussion with Straggler I stopped discussing cause for the Big Bang. ( I concluded that there is something instead of nothing simply because there always has been something.) Frankly, if you look at our universe as we experience it, and from what current science postulates I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that our universe is just one aspect of a greater infinite reality. We are so accustomed to thinking of time flowing in one direction it is difficult to conceive of more than one dimension of time. Presumably with there dimensions of time we could experience moving in time in the same way that we move around in our 3 spatial dimensions. Possibly this could be one of the characteristics of the greater reality. Who knows?However I suggest that the formation of life is a different sort of issue. We can see in our own experience of time that life began at an actual point of time in whatever form that took. I don't believe that you can equate cause and effect with those parameters. I still believe that life requires cause and that cause is either intelligent or non-intelligent. And monotonously again, IMHO, the chance of sentient moral life resulting from a pre-existing moral intelligence is more reasonable that it arising from the chance combination of mindless particles.

If it is ok I'll skip the first part of your post as I think you already know what it is that I will reply anyway and the other parts I'll cover here.I read through the link above. Here is a quote from the last section entitled is it real altruism.

quote:

---

5. But is it ‘Real’ Altruism?
The evolutionary theories described above, in particular kin selection, go a long way towards reconciling the existence of altruism in nature with Darwinian principles. However, some people have felt these theories in a way devalue altruism, and that the behaviours they explain are not ‘really’ altruistic. The grounds for this view are easy to see. Ordinarily we think of altruistic actions as disinterested, done with the interests of the recipient, rather than our own interests, in mind. But kin selection theory explains altruistic behaviour as a clever strategy devised by selfish genes as a way of increasing their representation in the gene-pool, at the expense of other genes. Surely this means that the behaviours in question are only ‘apparently’ altruistic, for they are ultimately the result of genic self-interest? Reciprocal altruism theory also seems to ‘take the altruism out of altruism’. Behaving nicely to someone in order to procure return benefits from them in the future seems in a way the antithesis of ‘real’ altruismit is just delayed self-interest.

​

This is a tempting line of argument. Indeed Trivers (1971) and, arguably, Dawkins (1976) were themselves tempted by it. But it should not convince. The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real’ altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real’ altruism nor therefore of ‘real’ selfishness either. Ants and termites, for example, presumably do not have conscious intentions, hence their behaviour cannot be done with the intention of promoting their own self-interest, nor the interests of others. Thus the assertion that the evolutionary theories reviewed above show that the altruism in nature is only apparent makes little sense. The contrast between ‘real’ altruism and merely apparent altruism simply does not apply to most animal species.

​

To some extent, the idea that kin-directed altruism is not ‘real’ altruism has been fostered by the use of the ‘selfish gene’ terminology of Dawkins (1976). As we have seen, the gene's-eye perspective is heuristically useful for understanding the evolution of altruistic behaviours, especially those that evolve by kin selection. But talking about ‘selfish’ genes trying to increase their representation in the gene-pool is of course just a metaphor (as Dawkins fully admits); there is no literal sense in which genes ‘try’ to do anything. Any evolutionary explanation of how a phenotypic trait evolves must ultimately show that the trait leads to an increase in frequency of the genes that code for it (presuming the trait is transmitted genetically.) Therefore, a ‘selfish gene’ story can by definition be told about any trait, including a behavioural trait, that evolves by Darwinian natural selection. To say that kin selection interprets altruistic behaviour as a strategy designed by ‘selfish’ genes to aid their propagation is not wrong; but it is just another way of saying that a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of altruism has been found. As Sober and Wilson (1998) note, if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection / donor-recipient correlation are ‘really selfish’, one ends up reserving the word ‘altruistic’ for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all.

​

Do theories of the evolution of biological altruism apply to humans? This is part of the broader question of whether ideas about the evolution of animal behaviour can be extrapolated to humans, a question that fuelled the sociobiology controversy of the 1980s and is still actively debated today (cf. Boyd and Richerson 2006, Bowles and Gintis 2011, Sterelny 2012). All biologists accept that Homo sapiens is an evolved species, and thus that general evolutionary principles apply to it. However, human behaviour is obviously influenced by culture to a far greater extent than that of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires (though this does not necessarily mean that genetics has no influence.) Nonetheless, at least some human behaviour does seem to fit the predictions of the evolutionary theories reviewed above. In general, humans behave more altruistically (in the biological sense) towards their close kin than towards non-relatives, e.g. by helping relatives raise their children, just as kin selection theory would predict. It is also true that we tend to help those who have helped us out in the past, just as reciprocal altruism theory would predict. On the other hand, humans are unique in that we co-operate extensively with our non-kin; and more generally, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the point of view of biological fitness. Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. But it is does not benefit kinfor parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adoptand nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits. So although evolutionary considerations can help us understand some human behaviours, they must be applied judiciously.

​

Where human behaviour is concerned, the distinction between biological altruism, defined in terms of fitness consequences, and ‘real’ altruism, defined in terms of the agent's conscious intentions to help others, does make sense. (Sometimes the label ‘psychological altruism’ is used instead of ‘real’ altruism.) What is the relationship between these two concepts? They appear to be independent in both directions, as Elliott Sober (1994) has argued; see also Vromen (2012) and Clavien and Chapuisat (2013). An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense. Conversely, an action undertaken for purely self-interested reasons, i.e., without the conscious intention of helping another, may boost their biological fitness tremendously.

​

Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists (see also Schulz 2011). On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's childrena quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens' welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.

---

Obviously the writer takes your position but he is very clear that it is just his opinion. and the opinions of others. The article is from the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". It is philosophy. It isn't science as you claim it to be. He clearly differentiates between helping others where there is a hoped for benefit to yourself or your gene pool in the end, and true altruism which involves self sacrifice for the benefit of others.You talk about it being an emotion. How many promos do we see on television with pictures of emaciated children in the third world. Sure, pretty much everyone is touched but out of all those people how many are touched enough that they do something about it, and even of that group how many are touched enough that they do enough that it actually reduces there life style? People generally think they should do something but they don't. Others like an 85 year old nurse in our little Anglican congregation recently returned from Uganda where she worked in a Aids clinic. She also sends every penny that she can over there to help individual kids to get an education. As I say, most people think they should do something but don't and others give until it hurts. I have said numerous times on this forum that " It is absolutely not the case that morality only exists in Christianity or that it didn't exist before Christ". It is a human characteristic that is universal. Christianity calls us to embrace true altruism.The article you cited was actually pretty clear that animals do not exhibit true altruism although I'm not sure I agree. Here again is what they say.

quote:

---

This is a tempting line of argument. Indeed Trivers (1971) and, arguably, Dawkins (1976) were themselves tempted by it. But it should not convince. The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real’ altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real’ altruism nor therefore of ‘real’ selfishness either. Ants and termites, for example, presumably do not have conscious intentions, hence their behaviour cannot be done with the intention of promoting their own self-interest, nor the interests of others. Thus the assertion that the evolutionary theories reviewed above show that the altruism in nature is only apparent makes little sense. The contrast between ‘real’ altruism and merely apparent altruism simply does not apply to most animal species.

---

So you drag up that old chestnut. Just which gap am I trying to fill? He did show up in the Christian view with Jesus embodying His "Word" or wisdom and you ignored Him anyway.Assuming that you have that still small voice of your conscience, then I suggest He's talking to you on a daily basis and you still don't believe He exists.We have fought more than enough wars for all sorts of reasons and in some cases where the name of God was unfortunately invoked.

Wow!