(March 19, 2014 at 10:37 am)tor Wrote: ...evolutionists often cite evolution as a source of morality...
Again, you confuse the "is" and the "ought".
Scientists are answering the question, "why do we have compassion for one another?" The answer is that we've evolved to be community animals and we need to work together to survive.
That's the "is".
At no time do scientists talk about what "ought to be". That's for philosophers to debate.
The fact that we gain our sense of empathy, community, compassion, etc. from our evolution is not to say that what has evolved is necessarily good nor does it follow that our evolved instincts are necessarily the best indicators who what is moral.
Clear?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
