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

Perhaps you are reading too much into the article.

Morality is not necessarily an appearance, it's just that a large
part is governed by an innate response. However, there is sufficient
opportunity for different cultures to mold this innate response.
Perhaps Darwinian theory may lead one to conclude that there is no
concept of good or wrong, but that is not what the argument is all
about, quite the opposite.

Compare this to a concept of absolute morality: Would this not reduce
our freedom to make moral decisions? And if your answer were
"ofcourse not" apply your logic to the scientific arguments presented
and come to the same conclusion.

To me the findings by science that morality has a foundation in a
moral code (moral grammar, Chomsky comes to mind) is quite exciting
to me as a scientist and christian

On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:03 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:

>
> 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 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 22:33:07 2006