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

I see, so you base your opinion on two contradictory opinions. But
that does not mean that this therefor means that 'this is not
science'. What it shows is that one, or both scientists are wrong.
And I am not even sure that the argument is made correctly here

Hauser: There is/may be a heritable component to religious morality
Dawkins: There is/may be a memetic component to religious morality

And I am not even sure that either one argues that because of this,
there is no God. Note that God being superfluous is not necessarily
an argument against God.

Hauser; Like language, the notion of a universal moral grammar should
not be equated with the rejection of cultural variation. Like
language, cross-cultural variation is expected. But the moral faculty
will place constraints on the range of cross-cultural variation and
thus limit the extent to which religion, law or teachers can modify
our intuitive moral judgments.

Memes: Proponents of memes suggest that memes evolve via natural
selection — in a way very similar to Charles Darwin's ideas
concerning biological evolution — on the premise that variation,
mutation, competition, and "inheritance" influence their replicative
success. For example, while one idea may become extinct, other ideas
will survive, spread and mutate — for better or for worse — through
modification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Any references to Dawkins denying a genetic component to morality and
vice versa a Hauser rejecting a memetic component?

On Oct 31, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Rich Blinne wrote:

>
>
> 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 19:06:04 2006