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

*Hauser noting that religious morality is innate makes C.S. Lewis'/Francis
Collins' argument for God stronger.*

That was my first thought too. It could be consistent with God preparing
the "vessel" into which he breathed His image. But it's interesting how
articles like this one take on a sort of smug, knowing narrative voice: "we
used to think morality meant something, but now we know better." There's
also a strong whiff of agent reductionism. The article states:

 The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies
that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct
behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior.
And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but,
rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

In other words, the appearance that we make free moral descisions is just
that, an appearance. We aren't really free to make moral decision; our
"morality" is hard-wired and nothing more. This is where I understand the
concern that Darwinism is of a piece with utilitarian ethics that recognize
no true concept of the good or of the wrong.

On 10/31/06, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/31/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Referencing NY Times article. ~ Janice
> >
> >
> > October 31, 2006
> > *Religion Not Source of 'Moral Codes'
> > *http://tinyurl.com/ymk5jd
> >
> >
> > One comment [hot link]:
> >
> > 11 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1729095/posts?page=11#11>
> > You might want to check out the current issue of WIRED magazine. The cover
> > article is about "The New Atheists" who emphatically and enthusiastically
> > ** *reject any connection with any type of religious ideas. Not sure how
> > the two groups will get along as I haven't really digested either article
> > completely yet. ... Of course none of them would consider reading Romans
> > 1:18 and following. ***Just remembered that the root of "enthusiasm"
> > means "in God" (as in ecstatically entranced).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From the NY Times review:
>
> Dr. Hauser believes that the moral grammar may have evolved through the
> > evolutionary mechanism known as group selection. A group bound by altruism
> > toward its members and rigorous discouragement of cheaters would be more
> > likely to prevail over a less cohesive society, so genes for moral grammar
> > would become more common.
> >
> > Many evolutionary biologists frown on the idea of group selection,
> > noting that genes cannot become more frequent unless they benefit the
> > individual who carries them, and a person who contributes altruistically to
> > people not related to him will reduce his own fitness and leave fewer
> > offspring.
> >
>
> 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 19:07:34 2006