*Do you believe that religions are the source of moral code?*
**
When it comes to law and morality, I am a natural law theorist. I believe
God is the source of the natural (moral) law, which is necessarily part of
the fabric of creation because it is inherent in God's character. Religious
and cultural norms often reflect, albeit imperfectly, this inherent natural
(moral) law. Moreover, I believe that, because of original sin, no human
being or human institution perfectly perceives or applies the natural law.
In fact, human beings are bent towards evil, in rebellion against the
natural law.
I can, then, accept your more modest proposition that social norms and human
moral codes have some grouding in human evolution. That seems consistent
with the notion that both the natural law, and the antithesis of the natural
law (sin), are built into the fiber of human nature.
What I couldn't accept is the reduction of all morality to conditioned
responses / evolution. Some legal theorists, I think, make this sort of
reductionistic assumption. They reject any notion of natural law, and
instead see positive law (law made by legislatures and judges) as nothing
but an instrument for enforcing preferences. This is usually closely tied
to a utilitarian ethic. IMHO, this tends to lead to a weak concept of
personal freedom and justice.
On 10/31/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Do you believe that religions are the source of moral code? The far
> reaching consequence is that as parents and teachers shape an innate moral
> grammar. Let's assume for a moment that the instinctive moral behavior is
> inspired by God, seeing religion as social enforcers of this hardly seems
> objectionable
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 7:39 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Pim, I don't think I really disagree with the more modest claims you're
> making here. The article, however, said the following:
>
>
> "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."
>
> Perhaps the journalist is reading too much into the science, but this
> seems much more reductionistic than what you're saying.
>
>
>
> On 10/31/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think the problem is that there is no reason to accept that
> > morality is attributable solely to evolution. That's the strawman
> > which leads you to ask the wrong, or at least irrelevant questions.
> > The three points you mention have no relevance to these scientific
> > findings. If science finds that there exists a moral grammar then
> > that has no impact on any of the three questions you raised.
> >
> > As Christians we may insist that there exists a foundation for this
> > moral code but that's something which is mostly outside scientific
> > inquiry.
> >
> > On Oct 31, 2006, at 7:18 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
> >
> > > What would be the problem if science established that there is an
> > > evolutionary explanation for morality? I fail to see how.
> > >
> > > Well, we're getting into that difficult definitional territory of
> > > what "evolution" or in this case an "evolutaionary explanation for
> > > morality" means. I fail to see how an "evolutionary explanation
> > > for morality" that attributes all morality solely to evolution can
> > > affirm any of the three points I mentioned. OTOH, if by an
> > > "evolutionary explanation for morality" you mean our evolutionary
> > > history predisposes us to think certain ways about morality, and
> > > nothing more than that, I'd agree with you. The devil is in the
> > > details. rather weak claim about predispositions is what
> > > evolutionary ethicists generally have in mind.
> >
>
>
>
>
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 22:52:36 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 22:52:36 EST