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 23:20:42 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 23:20:42 EST