The Origin of Morality: What Subject Area?
Yet another New York Times article suggesting that human morality evolved, with another gem of an intro:
Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.
It's a gem because this idea is not just advocated but assumed by many biologists in a blatant exercise in scientism. An article on the same topic appeared in the Times six months ago, and was the subject of this post.
So what kind of evidence would establish this? What kind of evidence would falsify it? That is, what kind of evidence would establish that human morality did not evolve? Is it a scientific question? Should evidence for and against be allowed in as "scientific"?
My comments there apply equally here.
Another blatant exercise in scientism found in the New York Times was the subject of my post "Cornelia Dean: Using Pseudoscience to Proselytize For Atheism."
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 3:05 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Come on Lawrence, we all know that serving your fellow man, faithfulness in relationships, and self-sacrifice came from Darwinian natural selection.
Also domination, murder, infidelity, rape, and narcissism came from Darwinian natural selection as well.
Morality, whether it was best outlined by Augustine or by Sade, can always be explained by Darwinian natural selection, because Darwinian natural selection explains everything.
By the way, William Lane Craig is steadfast on countering the silly notion that human morality is an evolutionary adaptation. Here's a decent essay of his on the subject of atheistic morality in general and biologically-based morality in particular. If you posted it before, then I apologize; I easily lose track of where I find great material.
Anything that is moral will positively affect society without restricting the freedom of the individuals.
Also, http://www.kobrascorner.com/essays/fundamentalism.php
Post a Comment
<< Home