On 10/31/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
Nope. Let me map it for you. Hauser says religious morality is heritable
therefore God is superfluous to why we have it. Dawkins says religious
morality is not heritable therefore God is superfluous.
a => b
~a => b
If both a condition and its contradiction leads to the same conclusion it
proves that the heritability of morality is not relevant to the question.
The only way they can get to the conclusion is to assume it and only shows
that both Dawkins and Hauser are begging the question. Note I am not saying
that evolution is not science. I am saying that in this limited context of
explaining morality in humans it is.
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 16:57:03 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 16:57:03 EST