RE: Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?
April 18, 2012 at 11:55 am
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 11:56 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
So, how do you then explain morale tendencies as emerging through evolutionary processes without the theist making you out to be a solipsist? In other words, how can you explain away peoples perceptions of objective morales as merely illusions caused by evolution yet at the same time, affirm that we know truth despite our evolution? The social biological answer to morality needs to be conceived and explained in such a way that the theist cannot make you out to be doubting everything.
The theist is wanting to say that the atheist's answer of "your revulsion of [insert something most find abhorrent] is just the result of evolution" is hardly different from the atheist saying "your understanding of everything is just the result of evolution."
A boundary between morality and knowledge and reason needs to be shown when explaining the evolutionary account of morality I guess is what I'm saying.
The theist is wanting to say that the atheist's answer of "your revulsion of [insert something most find abhorrent] is just the result of evolution" is hardly different from the atheist saying "your understanding of everything is just the result of evolution."
A boundary between morality and knowledge and reason needs to be shown when explaining the evolutionary account of morality I guess is what I'm saying.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
