(May 22, 2018 at 2:17 am)Mathilda Wrote: As usual the theist does not understand how science works. Just because De Waal claims something doesn't make it doctrine like in a religion. Science is not writing its own Bible. This is typical of the theist mentality of seeing everything from a religious view point.
There is the evidence. Then there is the interpretation of the evidence. So De Waal has produced some evidence and is inferring things from it. But another scientist can look at that same evidence and say that actually it means something else. This opens up an opportunity for new research to find out which scientist is correct. De Waal has been collecting evidence, but that doesn't mean to say that his interpretation is correct.
For one thing, it comes down to how he is defining morality. The very way he is defining it makes it a uniquely human experience, but morality has developed over time and his interpretation means that he is creating an arbitrary cut-off point where it starts and previous biological instincts that are required for human morality are not defined by him as morality. After all, in your last quote "the main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature". And this is my main point. Many of the same neural functions that give us humans morality also exist in other animals for similar purposes. There will never be a one to one equivalent because we are different species.
De Waal was the source YOU provided as corroborating the idea that animals have a sense of morality. De Waal claims no such thing, so instead of admiting you were wrong, you start backpedaling, that is typical atheist behavior.
Againg De Waal was YOUR source not mine.
(May 22, 2018 at 2:17 am)Mathilda Wrote:Quote:What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."
What sets human morality apart. Sure, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean to say that the other primates don't have their own less developed morality. It's the same error of thinking that leads people to argue that animals don't have emotions (and therefore souls) because they don't have human emotions.
Also the quote makes it look like he is stating that this is the purview of religion when it is not. It is what religion tries to control.
There aren't degrees to morality, morality is simply the ability to know right and wrong, it's basic human understanding.
Knowing right from wrong means you understand WHY something is right or wrong. If you don't know why murder is wrong, I'd argue you don't have any sense of morality.
Animals have absolutely zero ability to reason, therefore they cannot be moral.
