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

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 23:20:59 2006