Comments on: Why Do Moral Theologians Need Evolutionary Psychology? http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-do-moral-theologians-need-evolutionary-psychology/ "To gather up all things in Christ, in Heaven and on Earth." Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:55:21 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Everyday Thomist http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-do-moral-theologians-need-evolutionary-psychology/#comment-55 Everyday Thomist Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:25:25 +0000 http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/?p=51#comment-55 [...] The word was coined by positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who I have written about here.   Haidt describes elation as that strong motivational tendency towards moral improvement that [...] [...] The word was coined by positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who I have written about here.   Haidt describes elation as that strong motivational tendency towards moral improvement that [...]

]]> By: everydaythomist http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-do-moral-theologians-need-evolutionary-psychology/#comment-47 everydaythomist Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:33:03 +0000 http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/?p=51#comment-47 Much of what evolutionary psychologists posit is hypothetical. This is also the case with the idea of "selfish genes." Dawkins has a gene-centered theory of evolution (he's not the first one to have such theory, but he is the most famous) which argues that genes get passed on by serving their own interests (i.e. being replicated). The genes themselves are not actually selfish, but they seem like it from our perspective. These genes are then responsible for all types of behavior including altruistic behavior like a mother caring for her young, even to the point of self-sacrifice. The reason, Dawkins argues, that "selfish" genes and altruistic behavior go hand in hand is that the genes responsible for the behavior want to get replicated in future generations and so the self-sacrifice of one organism, if it perpetuates the genes of that organism, serves the goal of the "selfish genes. The standard criticism of this idea is that genes might not be the unit of evolutionary selection. Others (like David Stove) think that the role of natural selection (pace Dawkins) has been overstated in higher animals. I don't know enough about these critiques to have a highly-informed opinion, but I do think it quite likely that human behavior is not as much a product of sheer genetics as some people would like to argue. I think there is just so much human behavior (homosexual behavior, for example) that is contrary to genetic fitness for the Dawkins explanation of human beings as DNA-replicating machines to be the whole story. Much of what evolutionary psychologists posit is hypothetical. This is also the case with the idea of “selfish genes.” Dawkins has a gene-centered theory of evolution (he’s not the first one to have such theory, but he is the most famous) which argues that genes get passed on by serving their own interests (i.e. being replicated). The genes themselves are not actually selfish, but they seem like it from our perspective. These genes are then responsible for all types of behavior including altruistic behavior like a mother caring for her young, even to the point of self-sacrifice. The reason, Dawkins argues, that “selfish” genes and altruistic behavior go hand in hand is that the genes responsible for the behavior want to get replicated in future generations and so the self-sacrifice of one organism, if it perpetuates the genes of that organism, serves the goal of the “selfish genes.

The standard criticism of this idea is that genes might not be the unit of evolutionary selection. Others (like David Stove) think that the role of natural selection (pace Dawkins) has been overstated in higher animals. I don’t know enough about these critiques to have a highly-informed opinion, but I do think it quite likely that human behavior is not as much a product of sheer genetics as some people would like to argue. I think there is just so much human behavior (homosexual behavior, for example) that is contrary to genetic fitness for the Dawkins explanation of human beings as DNA-replicating machines to be the whole story.

]]> By: Nando http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-do-moral-theologians-need-evolutionary-psychology/#comment-46 Nando Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:24:06 +0000 http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/?p=51#comment-46 My understanding is that evolutionary psychologists do indeed posit a distinct, but cumulatively selected, human nature, with "selfish" genes creating altruistic people. As social creatures, a complex emotional sense could evolve as the eye did--with cumulative advances. Many generations of living among kin and group has done that in our species. My understanding is that evolutionary psychologists do indeed posit a distinct, but cumulatively selected, human nature, with “selfish” genes creating altruistic people.

As social creatures, a complex emotional sense could evolve as the eye did–with cumulative advances. Many generations of living among kin and group has done that in our species.

]]>