Altruism

Evolutionists are in a quandary over whether altruism is innate or formed. Since evolution understands the world in a "survival of the fittest" 'worldview', evolutionists wonder how humans become "more than animals".

Some evolutionists go with Aristotle's virtue or Kant's categorical imperative to formulate their understanding of enviroments that produce 'productive and propering" humanity. Others believe that scientific investigation must understand human innatedness, so that natural/biological scientists can inform social and psychological scientists on human development, while others believe that religion can be useful to "form society" in "a perfect" and "ordered" Marxist way. ("Relgion is the opiate of the people")

Nature and nurture has always baffled social and natural scientists seeking to understand the human. What baffles me, is their arrogance in the face of an individual, when they speak out so loudly against "imperialism". That smells of paternalistic attitudes that they themselves are strongly against when it comes to paternalistic views in certain communities or countries.

Postmodernity does have its drawbacks.

In Thinking About Aristocracy

History was never a subject that I delighted in during my schooling. Unfortunately, without an understanding of history, one is doomed to "repeat the mistakes of the past". History teaches us wisdom, as it helps us understand the "human element" that does not change. Government is to provide a framework to protect men from each other. It was never meant to be an oppressive force over individual liberties.

Since evolutionary theory is the "consensus" of most, and scientific investigation "works" upon the basis of the "pragmatic", we accept evolution as truth in science.

Evolution does not give us "human history", as we have developed from lower life forms. These life forms do not hold the "essence" of the human, but are the basic physical components of the "human". We really do not understand the human in these days of scientific understanding. But we are seeking for more information and understanding.

Evolution applied to human society defines civilization as human "engineering". Leaders plan, dominate and control what "is to be". These are the aristocracy in our societies. Aristocracy is a 'natural" occurrance in the world, as without leadership, nothing else will have focus, or vision. But, while aristocracy is the "natural" understanding of organizational structuring, free societies do not priviledge the aristocracy to be "above the law". Free societies depend on "law" to maintain order and structure in society, and not just leaders' visions, viewpoint, desires and opinions. Societies that function on the basis of a leader's "persona" are despotic.

Leaders in oppressive societies limit equality under law, subvert the law, or define the law arbitrarily. These societies seem to bring about a human resistance in reform or revolution, as humans are meant to live as individuals, defining themselves by their most important values. This is why America applauds "civil liberties". And no one is to be "above the law".

The natural order is structured by competition. Many think that this is wrong and attempt to "give life and choice" to those who have less of an edge on competition. These think that governing through "compassion" is the most important attribute to develop. Others think that competition, being the natural state of things should determine how we "use" the natrual order for the benefit of society. These believe that the market is the most productive way to "use" the natural order.

I believe our country affirms both values, as we believe in protecting the rights of the disabled, the minority, and the unfortunate. But, we disagree to what extint this should go in our society.

Competition is based on "self responsiblity" and "self governance" that protects the individual from their tendency to "not bear their weight". Compassion, on the other hand, lends help to those who cannot govern themselves, either through lack of training, or lack of ability. Our political parties are divided as to how these values are to be implemented and maintained. This is what our culture wars are about.

Is the aristocracy to be in government's hands, corporate hands, or individual hands? That is a big question of how we see the world, understand life and evaluate priorites.

Determined by Evolution, God, or Choice?

Rational people take responsibility for their lives, but reason is not the domain of determinism, by God or by evolution.

Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.

Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.

The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.

Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.

America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.

I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.

Dogs, Training, and Incarnation

Evolutionary biologists, psychologists, and moral philosophers all concur that humans are animals. Animal behavior, such as dogs, must be trained. Without training, dogs are not socialized and may have destructive behavior toward others.

I have been thinking about this, as we just got a new puppy this week-end. Top dog (alpha) behavior must be trained out of the animal, so that the human can control the environment according to ends that meet the humans needs and desires.

In organizational structures, unless "top dogs" have learned to curtail their behavior, then, there are disastarous consequences for the person, organization and others within the organization. Many of the religious traditions have a meditative "arm" that lends itself to self-examination. These meditative "ways' are called various things by the different religious traditions. These "ways" where the tendencies to "run over" others, or to lack self-reflection are recognized and re-directed, re-focused or limited.

On the other hand, those whose tendency is reticence, will find that these self-reflective "ways" will help them to recognize their own limitations and seek help. Dogs who haven't been socialized, as humans that have not had the proper training, also need socialization and someone who knows how to handle them so that resistance, attack or self-defeating behavior can subside.

I do not think that affirming evolutionary thinking in the disciplines is "wrong headed" unless one uses it as ultimate truth. Science does reduce man, but does not affirm man's giftedness, potentialities, etc. That is the re-direction that must happen when one takes evolutionary thinking seriously. In reductionistic thinking, materialist, or physicalist do not give leeway for man's difference from the animal kingdom. Behaviorists who treat man as an animal in "training" wil be implementing a form of legalistic uniformity that ultimately destroys the personability of the person.

Original Sin, Evolution, and Grandparenting

I have been keeping my two grandchildren while my daughter works. Hannah and Drayton are two and ten months.

My husband and I had three children that were born within four years. I have learned a lot since then. And this is what wisdom is about.

When my children were young, I was so concerned that they be brought up in the "admonition of the Lord". "Train up a child in the way he should go..." were mottos we lived by. We were in Church every Sunday for Sunday School, as well as the main service. We went to services again on Sunday evenings. We even sang together as a family on an occassion. But, if I was desirous of teaching my children what was important, which was about God, what have I learned about my failures?

First and foremost, I understood that our children were "fallen". They had "sin natures". So, every childish behavior was viewed as rebellion. Unfortunately, too late for them, I have learned that they were not rebellious, but just children. They needed guidance, but not oppression. I was an authoratarian, because I feared for their future, as well as failing as a parent. My desire for being a good parent became a goal that was oppressive even to me. So, I am glad for an opportunity to be "wisdom" to my daughter and to help her in bringing up the children, with the "wisdom" I have gained.

The main problem with the view I had was that there was a "form" of parenting that must be adhered to. I did not take into consideration the differences in my children or that my own issues would play into how I saw my parenting.

Evolution teaches that we are animals. Animals must be trained. But, the problem with this view is similar to my "sin nature" view. There is a "form" in which parenting is done, which is behavior modification. This is not a relational view, but again an authoritarian one.

Parents and grandparents must build a relationship with their children or grandchildren. This means listening first and foremost to what their needs are and attempting to serve them. It means that when it is possible without compromising the things that are most important, then do. Distract with other opportunities. Give praise, encourage, but be firm when necessary. This brings joy to the heart to see how responsive a little child can be and what they can learn so quickly if they believe you love them.