(July 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm)Inigo Wrote:Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:Naturally.it just wouldn't do to discuss evidence based theories.
How am I ignoring the evolutionary explanation? I am not denying the evolutionary explanation!! But the evolutionary explanation is an explanation of the development of our moral sense and moral beliefs. And morality is not a sensation or a belief. It is the thing sensed, the thing believed. How many times?
An evolutionary explanation of religious sensations and beliefs can be provided as well. Does such an explanation show those religions to be true? No, it debunks them.
Similarly, an evolutionary explanation of our moral sense and beliefs DEBUNKS those beliefs.
AKA having ones cake and eating it.
You ask how many times, but that's the same question we're asking right back at you regarding the evidence of why you are inferring some greater, supernatural power behind morality when the evolutionary thesis on morality explains it perfectly well without it.
Parsimony, Occam's good old' razor and all that.
I mean, I could also cite a false equivocation fallacy where you cite a similarity between an evolved thesis on the origin of religion (which I would agree with) with a divinely inspired evolutionary morality (having the cake), but why bother?
Please, do carry on with the un-evidenced assertions. It really is rather fascinating.