Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

This does not make sense. What do you mean by "at a minimum this is
not science because it is by definition not falsifiable"?

What is by definition not falsifiable? Could not both be right? Just
like Darwinism is not disproven by genetic drift?

 From the NYT article

<quote>Matters of right and wrong have long been the province of
moral philosophers and ethicists. Dr. Hauser’s proposal is an attempt
to claim the subject for science, in particular for evolutionary
biology. The moral grammar evolved, he believes, because restraints
on behavior are required for social living and have been favored by
natural selection because of their survival value.

Much of the present evidence for the moral grammar is indirect. Some
of it comes from psychological tests of children, showing that they
have an innate sense of fairness that starts to unfold at age 4. Some
comes from ingenious dilemmas devised to show a subconscious moral
judgment generator at work. These are known by the moral philosophers
who developed them as “trolley problems.” </quote>

And the ending of the article

<quote>Nevertheless, researchers’ idea of a good hypothesis is one
that generates interesting and testable predictions. By this
criterion, the proposal of an innate moral grammar seems unlikely to
disappoint.</quote>

I am not sure if Hauser's argument strengthens Collins/CS Lewis
argument for God. Which God would one consider to be responsible for
the innate nature of religious morality?

On Oct 31, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Rich Blinne wrote:

>
>
>
> Simply put, this is an unproven hypothesis and a controversial one
> at that. What's interesting is Hauser claims that so-called
> religious morality is a heritable trait while Dawkins claims
> otherwise in his meme hypothesis. When opposite facts prove the
> same conclusion then there is something wrong with either or both
> of the theories. At a minimum it is not science because it is by
> definition not falsifiable. Hauser noting that religious morality
> is innate makes C.S. Lewis'/Francis Collins' argument for God
> stronger.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 31 14:13:31 2006