alschroeder

Continuing a look at the origin of reality...largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING.  He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.

Kenosis--a Greek term, used in theology, the doctrine that Christ relinquished His divine attributes so as to experience human suffering.  It literally means an emptying, a draining out in Greek. Looked at in broader terms, it is a common theme in many religions and mythologies.

Prometheus suffered eternal torment to give his creation, mankind, a better shot at survival.

Odin gave an eye so to gain greater wisdom, then hung self-sacrificed on a tree to gain the power of Runes.

Buddha renounced the luxuries that his birth status conferred on him, renounced the petty concerns of the self, let go of the self, of the illusion that this world traps one in,  to gain oneness with Infinity, attaining Nirvana.

And of course, it is a core Christian belief  that not only did Jesus renounce divine attributes to be human, but suffered a shameful death to gain freedom from death--not just for Himself but for anyone who wants to share in it.

Oddly enough, similar themes run in the inanimate  world--and in nonsentient life.

Next time, we'll examine religious arrogance, and if it disqualifies religion as a possible explanation.

Next time: ARROGANCE AND FAITH<p>

Continuing a look at the origin of reality...largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING.  He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.

Looking at some non-theological interpretations of materialism that are not as bleak as the existential crisis brought on by pure materialism...

Many of us rightly try to avoid narrowness in outlook and make allowances for the values and different perspectives of different cultures, as we should. The Vikings believed dying in battle was the surest way to Valhalla, a viewpoint that would horrify Buddhist monks who feel nonviolence is the surest way to Nirvana.  But to say any society's values are totally relative and self-determined carries some strange implications.

I had a philosophy/sociology teacher in college who said that social scientists try to adopt the latest scientific paradigm, often with bad results. Soon after the theory of evolution was introduced, some thinkers misapplied such thinking to social situations, creating the horror known as "Social Darwinism".  In the 20th and 21st, the theory of relativity in physics resulted in social scientists often feeling all values are relativie---without following that idea to its logical conclusion.

This isn't a theist/atheist distinction.  Again, some of the most moral people I know are nontheists.  But I venture to say I could mention any number of sitautions or practices, once believed passionately by the cultures they lived in, which you would recoil from, no matter who you are.

No matter how much lip service you might give to "social relativism" there are some things you don't think are relative, but intrinsically wrong.

I'll show you...next week.  

Next time: SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART TWO<p>

Continuing a look at the origin of reality...largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING.  He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.

Looking at some non-theological interpretations of materialism that are not as bleak as the existential crisis brought on by pure materialism...

This is NOT to deny that evolutionary psychology (i.e. sociobiology) doesn't have some important truths to tell us, both in the animal kingdom and  to the human experience.  But deep down, even we don't believe it, in our heart of hearts.  It's not a theist/nontheist thing.  Some of the most moral people I know of are nontheists, like the late Isaac Asimov or the living Harlan Ellison.  Indeed, many nontheists are outraged by what they perceive of a fictional God acting nonmorally---without realizing the very standards they hold God and others is mysterious in origin, a thing so close to us that we don't see how unexplainable it is.

I hope I don't need to point out that I do NOT advocate a euthenasia program, either for low-IQ children or the senile.  I'm just pointing out that the evolutionary imperative to eliminate the unfit is strangely absent in most cultures' sociology, despite its evolutionary logic.

Those who devote their lives to helping others--without even kin-selection benefit---like Schweitzer, or Annie Sullivan spending her life bringing one individual, Helen Keller, to true intellectual flowering-- are almost universally admired, despite any personal failings they might have.

Why?

Next time: SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT<p>

Continuing a look at the origin of reality...largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING.  He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.

Looking at some non-theological interpretations of materialism that are not as bleak as the existential crisis brought on by pure materialism...

Sorry about the lateness of the posting of this.  Busy week.

As I said last week...

I'm a strong believer in evolution, and certainly there are many truths in evolutionary psychology.  Still, many laypeople are turning evolutionary psychology into something much broader than originally intended. (Most real evolutionary psychologists are aware of the limitations of their field of study, and several recent statements by such are careful to differentiate between biological altruism and true altruism.) Evolution is prone to many misapplications of its theory and used to justify things that would horrify Darwin himself--from Social Darwinism to SOME (not all, by any means) excesses of sociobiology.

We don't inherit antisocial or social behavior.  We are given some basic tendencies, some aptitudes, but Al Capone's son became a sheriff. There are literally thousands of others examples.

To reduce altruism--and by extension, moral behavior--to an evolutionary cause-and-effect is an unjustified oversimplification, especially for conscious, thinking beings who defy instincts all the time.  It certainly explains some instinctive altruism in animals but even there it doesn't tell the whole story.  There are many displays of cross-species altruism that cannot be explained by kin selection. (And if you say evolutionary altruism isn't sharp enough to differentiate altruism to propagate the gene pool from those outside the gene pool--you bring up another problem with this theory.  It's impossible to disprove. If it agrees with the theory, it's caused by kin selection. If it disagrees, it's because evolution is too "clumsy" to distinguish. It's heads you win, tails you lose--unprovable in a Popperian sense.

Kin selection and the advantages given by "Prisoner's Gambit" scenarios might explain some tendencies--but they fall far short of a full explanation.

More next time.

Next time: SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART TWO<p>

Continuing a look at the origin of reality...largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING.  He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.

Looking at some non-theological interpretations of materialism that are not as bleak as the existential crisis brought on by pure materialism...

I didn't devote much time to Marxism and its implications, except to note that its value system seems to be decidedly NON-materialistic.  Its claims to what is "best" seems self-evident and just built in to the universe. History, both in general and recent, seems to refute many of its claims anyway.

Sociobioloby and its successor, evolutionary psychology, is more recent in developement and much more in vogue among intellectual circles, and deserves a fuller treatment. I'm a strong believer in evolution, and certainly there are many truths in evolutionary psychology.  Still, many laypeople are turning evolutionary psychology into something much broader than originally intended, and I'll be going into many misconceptions of same. (Most real evolutionary psychologists are aware of the limitations of their field of study, and several recent statements by such are careful to differentiate between biological altruism and true altruism.) Evolution is prone to many misapplications f its theory and used to justify things that would horrify Darwin himself--from Social Darwinism to SOME (not all, by any means) excesses of sociobiology.

More next time.

Next time: SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS<p>